Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DERBY CORPORATION BILL

REIGATE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH BILL

SOLIHULL CORPORATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Read the Third time and passed.

BATH CORPORATION BILL

DEVON RIVER AUTHORITY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

PETITION

Housing Finance Bill

Mr. Frank Allaun: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to present to Parliament a Petition, signed by 21,630 tenants protesting against the Government's Housing Finance Bill—from Mansfield, Camden, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Dartford, Walsall, Keighley, Sutton Coldfield, and other areas.
The Petition sheweth
That the serious increase in council and private landlords' rents threatened under the…Bill is deliberate and unnecessary and will lead to a sharp rise in the cost of living for millions of families.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that there should be an unconditional withdrawal of the

Bill and that local authorities should not operate it if it becomes law; and further that there should be: (1) immediate reduction of rents; (2) reduction of housing loan rates of interest to 2½per cent.; (3) increase of housing subsidies; (4) municipalisation of rented dwellings; (5) security of tenure for all tenants, including tenants of furnished dwellings; and (6) nationalisation of all urban land except that owned by owner-occupiers.
The Petition concludes, as required:
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Food Prices

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increase in food prices occurred during the twenty months ended 31st March, 1972, or the latest convenient date.

Mr. Carter: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much food has risen in price since 18th June, 1970.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage food prices have risen since June, 1970, to the latest convenient date.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 11th April.—[Vol. 834, c. 171.]

Sir G. Nabarro: That reply indicated an approximate increase in food prices over the period indicated in my Question of about 16 per cent., which was grievous. Will my right hon. Friend give us an absolutely unequivocal undertaking that he and all his Cabinet colleagues are resisting to the utmost the demands for excessive wage increases as in the case of the coal miners and railwaymen?

Mr. Prior: Wage increases have a great deal to do with rises in the cost of living. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks.

Mr. Carter: Contrary to the drivel of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), does the Minister accept that much of the acrimony in the present dispute in the railway industry is directly attributable to the outrageous level of price increases in the food sector over the past 18 months and, in particular, the cynical disregard by the Government of their election pledges to cut prices at a stroke?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman should not make outrageous statements which bear no relation to the truth. The railway workers have had an increase far in excess of any increase in the cost of living. Since last July the increase in the cost of living has been running at a rate about half that of the increase of the previous 12 months. That is true of the Food Index, too. The one thing that can destroy all our hopes for stable prices is if wage increases run totally out of line with either increases in the cost of living or increases in production.

Mrs. Short: There are large areas of poverty in this country for which the Government appear to have no regard. Apart from pensioners, there is an enormous number of people who work a full working week and who get very little more than the subsistence level of pay. Some of these happen to be railwaymen. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that railway workers in my constituency who do a full working week and give up their Sundays and free time take home less than£15 per week? If he is talking about stable prices, why does he not take steps to control the price of food?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Lady is wrong——

Mrs. Short: I am not wrong!

Mr. Prior: The average earnings of railwaymen are£28 a week. There is not a single man in the railways earning less than£20 per week. There are sections of poverty in this country, and the best thing that all hon. Members can do for them is to keep down excessive wage claims so that we can help those who need help.

Mr. Evelyn King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a considerable degree of responsibility for increased food prices rests not only on those who seek inflationary wage settlements but on hon.

Members of the Opposition who so irresponsibly support them?

Mr. Prior: I agree with my hon. Friend. Hon. Members opposite spend a great deal of time complaining about increases in the cost of living and then a great deal of time supporting excessive wage claims.

Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister pay a little more attention to his responsibility as the Minister for Agriculture instead of as spokesman and Deputy Chairman of the Tory Party? He has the position completely the wrong way round. One of the reasons for demanding wage increases is the Minister's inertia in trying to control the rapidly rising price of food.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Member knows that that is nonsense. Since the CBI initiative last July, the cost of living has been increasing at about 5 per cent. per year and yet wage claims are being awarded or asked for at the rate of 14, 16 or 20 per cent. a year. They bear no relation to the cost of living. We must all realise that this is not serving the interests of the nation in any way whatsoever.

Mr. Dixon: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest assessment of the likely increase in British food prices following entry into the Common Market in view of the greater rise in international food prices compared with Common Market food prices.

Mr. Ewing: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has now made of the increase in British food prices consequent upon Great Britain joining the European Economic Community, in the light of the most recent assessment of the European Economic Community Commission.

Mr. Prior: The latest estimate which takes account of changes in world prices of certain commodities (notably milk products) and the farm price increases recently agreed by the Community is that accession to the EEC will result in an increase in retail food prices in the United Kingdom of about 2 per cent. per annum over a period of about six years.

Mr. Dixon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any rise in food prices as a


result of Britain joining the Common Market will have nothing to do with the relationship between British food prices and European food prices but rather between international food prices and the Common Market food prices? We have virtually no control over international food prices, but from next year, as a major consumer, we shall have enormous control over Common Market food prices.

Mr. Prior: I do not think there is any doubt that it is recognised by the Community that from next year we shall be exerting a very considerable control over food price increases within the Community. But at the moment we have no control over world food prices to which we are subjected, and it is these prices which have been rising most rapidly.

Mr. Ewing: The British housewife is certainly not convinced by the type of answer the Minister has given today. She does not believe that prices will increase by only 2 per cent. as a result of joining the Common Market. In a recent publication called "Burdens and Benefits of Farm Support Policies" the authors make it quite clear that the burdens of joining the Common Market will fall most on the lower paid and will create more poverty than exists now.

Mr. Prior: I accept that it is on the lower-paid members of the community that increases in the price of food fall most harshly. This is fully accepted in the Government's White Paper which we published before the debate in the House of Commons. I can give all hon. Members the assurance that the Government are determined to see that where an increase falls most harshly, the assistance, whether through social benefits or other methods, should help them in that respect.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the increase in food prices between February, 1971 and February, 1972.

Mr. Prior: Between 16th February, 1971, and 22nd February, 1972, the Food Index rose by 11·9 per cent.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that these figures, coupled with the figures which he gave for the period since the Government took office, represent an

extra£3 per week on the average train driver's family food bill? Is this what the Tory Government mean by blackmail?

Mr. Prior: I am also aware that in the last month the action I have taken has reduced the average weekly food bill of the family by 20p.

Mr. Farr: Can my right hon. Friend say what effect the reduction he made in the price of milk and the other actions he has taken in the last month have had upon the cost of living?

Mr. Prior: When it comes through in the index, which will not be until the 1st April figures are published, it will amount to about 3 points or 2 per cent.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now introduce measures to control food prices for lower-paid workers.

Mr. Prior: The National Food Survey shows that households where the earner is in the lowest range of income have, in general, maintained their expenditure on food in real terms in recent years. But where any of this group are in need and dependent on social benefits, the Government prefer to adjust these benefits to maintain their value rather than impose controls.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that the Trade Policy Research Centre recently calculated that food costs for families in poverty would increase by£33 a year when we were in the Common Market? Is he aware that they show that under the CAP British households with less than£36 a week, the great bulk of working-class households, will have to pay an extra£500 million in farm support costs, whereas at present they pay only£67 million? What is he doing to stop this sell-out of the poor?

Mr. Prior: I have read the statement by the Trade Policy Research Centre. We have already recognised that the increase in food prices generally will bear heaviest on the low-income groups. That is why in the White Paper we gave firm assurances that any increase in the cost of living resulting from entry into the EEC will be fully taken into account in the reviews we make, and we shall be making a review each year both of pensions and of family income supplement

Mr. Ridsdale: Is not one of the best ways of helping the lower-paid workers to restrain wage demands, as many of the demands for increases ahead of productivity increases are causing unemployment?

Mr. Prior: I agree very much with my hon. Friend, and I would go one stage further. The other thing we need to do is to give everyone in this country a chance to earn more—and I mean earn more. A combination of those two things would do more to help the lower-income groups than anything else.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by a cruel irony the factor of low income per head coincides in many areas with a higher-than-average price of food? I am referring particularly to areas such as Mid-Wales and the South-West of England. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to have a thorough and rigorous survey made of this factor, and is he willing in principle to agree that there should be a strict control of prices, particularly in those areas?

Mr. Prior: I do not agree with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I shall study very carefully what he said in the former part. I would point out to him that by a cruel irony it was in the period of the last Government that the low-income groups suffered most.

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage food prices have risen in the last six months.

Mr. Prior: Between 17th August, 1971, and 22nd February, 1972, the Food Index rose by 4·5 per cent.

Mr. Price: Does not that figure prove that the Minister's forecasts of a substantial slowing down in the spiral of price increases have been worthless and that his recent so-called reductions are nothing more or less than a thoroughly sick joke? In view of the disastrous performance we have had from him on a full-time basis, what hope for us is there from him on a part-time basis?

Mr. Prior: On the contrary, the figures prove exactly the opposite to what the hon. Gentleman claims. They prove that the food price increases are slowing down

very considerably. I know that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will be pleased to hear that for the next few months the prospects are even better—that is, of course, provided that we do not price ourselves out of the market again by increased wages bearing no relation to productivity.

Sir G. Nabarro: Has not my right hon. Friend observed the descending progression of the 16 per cent. increase which he gave in reply to me, the 11 per cent. increase which he gave in reply to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and now the 4 per cent. which he gave in reply to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price)? Is not this a descending progression?

Mr. Prior: In fairness, the figures relate to different periods of time. But for all that, they are considerably better, and I notice the gay expressions of right hon. and hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman must also recognise that he is dealing with a seasonal position. The 4·5 per cent. increase is serious and alarming, especially when weighed against the promise that prices would be cut at a stroke.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we never talked about prices being cut at a stroke. When he talks about the seasonal position, he should remember that the best part of the season is yet to come.

Mr. Duffy: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how wholesale food prices moved in the first quarter of 1972, compared with the last quarter of 1971.

Mr. Prior: Between September and December, 1971, the wholesale price index for the products of the food manufacturing industries rose by 1·3 per cent., whereas between December, 1971, and March, 1972, provisional results show a fall of 0·3 per cent.

Mr. Duffy: Will the right hon. Gentleman then explain why this has not already been reflected in food prices for the housewife?

Mr. Prior: It has been reflected in prices for the housewife, but the cost-of-food index always runs about six weeks


behind. Before putting down another Question about that, the hon. Gentleman should consult his hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price).

Whale Meat

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the powers he has to restrict the import of whale meat and other whale products.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): I have none, Sir.

Mr. Edwards: Many people feel that this country should follow the example of the United States and a number of other countries and ban the import of whale products.

Mr. Stodart: I think that that would imply that all whaling should be prohibited. I do not consider that such drastic action would be justified, although effective conservation is necessary.

Mr. James Johnson: Why does the Minister not seek powers? Can he not follow the example of his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry who only a few weeks ago sought and obtained powers to ban the import of the skins of many cats such as jaguar, puma, tiger and so forth? This is important for conservation and for decent and good living.

Mr. Stodart: While my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture does not have the powers, in fact powers to ban import of whales are available to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Money: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that over 50 Members on both sides of the House have already signed Early Day Motion No. 278 on the preservation of the species and that public feeling in the country is very strong indeed on this subject—so strong that I am told that some letters have even been received by the Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Stodart: I am very conscious indeed of public feeling, which has been expressed in many letters which I have received from hon. Members. I would

merely point out that it is important to tackle this at the root, that is by means of conservation, and this country is playing a very considerable part in this direction. It may be of some encouragement to hon. Members to know that lower catch limits have been agreed for the future.

Mr. Dalyell: How can the Minister talk about drastic action when the drastic situation is that these whales are likely to become extinct?

Mr. Stodart: I did not hear what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Dalyell: In the Minister of State's reply, his departmental brief said "drastic action". How can he talk about drastic action when these whales are likely to become extinct?

Mr. Stodart: I do not think that that is what I said, but I will see tomorrow from Hansard whether I used the words "drastic action".

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the recommendations on international agricultural policy submitted by the developing countries to the Third United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, at present taking place at Santiago, Chile.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade told this Conference at its opening plenary session last week, the Government recognise that, since exports of primary agricultural commodities are of great importance to the economies of many developing countries, it is important to tackle the outstanding problems in every way we can.

Mr. Judd: Will not the hon. Gentleman accept that so far the Government's rôle in Santiago has appeared extraordinarily half-hearted and ineffective? Is he aware that the majority of developing countries have said categorically that the common agricultural policy of the EEC is a grave obstacle to the economic and social development of the people of


the Third World? What will the Government do about this, or are they so anxious to creep uncritically into Europe that they will stay silent on it?

Mr. Stodart: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's first observation. With regard to the second, I refer him to the Written Answer given him on 28th March.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will the Minister have another look at the matter and use his influence with the Government? Does not he realise that it is futile for the Government to say that private enterprise investment should be taken into account when we are making a calculation of the 1 per cent. of gross national product given in aid? Does not he agree that private enterprise always wants a return for its money, so that Government grants are far better? Do not we owe something to the under-developed nations to make sure that their standard of living will increase?

Mr. Stodart: I agree that we owe something to the under-developed nations. Most of the least developed of those countries are heavily dependent on agricultural commodities of a very limited range, and the prime need in order to tackle that problem at source is technical help to assist them to diversify.

Producer Marketing Organisations

Mr. Strang: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the criteria which producer marketing organisations will have to comply with if Great Britain enters the European Economic Community.

Mr. Prior: Article 1 of EEC regulation 159/66 contains a definition which applies to horticultural producers' marketing organisations only. An English text is published in Part 28 Section 1 of the pre-accession texts of the secondary legislation of the European Communities.

Mr. Strang: Will the Government consider publishing a consultative document on the changes which they think should take place in our marketing arrangements, in order that we can have an open public discussion on this matter rather than just a series of meetings, which is envisaged in this year's Price Review?

Mr. Prior: I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman says. It would be very difficult to frame an open consultative document along the lines he suggests, but this is a very important matter. It is still a little too early to say which general course we can take, because the EEC has not yet made up its mind. But I will consider what the hon. Gentleman has said in a few weeks' time when we perhaps know a little more about what is in its mind.

Mr. Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need for growers, merchants and other interested bodies to realise the importance of setting up such producer organisations as quickly as possible so that we can take full advantage of the benefits that will result?

Mr. Prior: That is true, but we must be certain that the sort of organisation we encourage growers to set up is in line with the EEC organisations, so that we can obtain financial advantage from them.

Mr. Deakins: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the pooling of transport costs, which is very important in the operation of the Milk Marketing Board, has been approved by the EEC authorities, and that there is no danger of that marketing board or any others being asked to change its ways to the detriment of the interests of producers remote from the market?

Mr. Prior: I should like to reassure myself on that question, but I have no reason to think that we shall have to abide by any particular rules of the Common Market in this respect, because I think they are purely voluntary rules which each country can choose for itself. But I will check and let the hon. Gentleman know.

Sugar

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial support is being given for the support of the sugar industry.

Mr. Prior: None, Sir, except that sugar refiners are of course eligible for the grants and allowances available to manufacturing industry in general.

Mr. Dalyell: What do the allowances amount to in cash terms?

Mr. Prior: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures of what the refiners and so on receive in terms of allowances, but if the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question I will answer it.

Mr. Buchanan: This is a shocking situation. To two consecutive Questions, both of immense importance to agriculture and the Government's future policies, the Minister does not know the answer. He has apparently not considered the future of the Milk Marketing Board, which will be a shock to the whole industry, and he has not even looked at the Question he was asked about the sugar industry. He must do something about this situation if Question Time is not to be made a farce.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a speech.

Stilboestrol

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek powers to ban the use of stilboestrol as a growth promoter for pigs, in view of its dangers to human health.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Mills): The Veterinary Products Committee has advised us that on present information any carcinogenic hazard likely to arise from such use is not sufficient to justify any special controls. However, the Committee made recommendations in relation to injectable oestrogens used in veal production which my right hon. Friend is considering.

Mrs. Butler: But in view of the recent evidence from America that the hormone can produce cancers in daughters of women who were treated with it in pregnancy, is it safe to continue to use it as a feeding stuff for animals produced for meat of any description, particularly as some other countries have banned its use completely?

Mr. Mills: I have seen the article the hon. Lady mentioned. It is important to leave it to the VPC to deal with the matter. It has it under consideration, and when further information becomes available it will put forward its views.

Dr. Stuttaford: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the main danger arises from any form of stilboestrol implant?

Be that as it may, it is a strange situation when we have stringent regulations for the control of this drug when prescribed by a doctor but allow it to be prescribed by the butcher with a pork chop.

Mr. Mills: This is another aspect of the same problem, but, as I have said, the VPC is looking at it and will make its recommendations.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why the Government are prepared to allow this potentially dangerous substance to be used but are artificially restraining British production to 41 per cent. of the nation's estimated consumption of bacon?

Mr. Mills: I do not think that that supplementary question has very much to do with the subject. When the Government have set up a committee to deal with these questions, it is wise to allow it to get on with the task and to make its recommendations. That is what is being done.

European Economic Community

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent joining the European Economic Community will affect the powers of the Agricultural Wages Board.

Mr. Peter Mills: The powers of the board will not be affected.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that agricultural workers are very much afraid that if we go into the EEC the real value of their low wages will be greatly affected? Does not he consider that the present rate of wages paid to them is far too low? Will he consider giving an extra subsidy to the farmers to make certain that they can pay better wages to their workers?

Mr. Mills: The agricultural workers can rest assured that there will be no change. The board will go on doing its work. The future for the agricultural workers is surely best secured by a prosperous home agriculture, which my right hon. Friend is certainly providing.

Mr. Adam Butler: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the increased incomes that farmers will obtain from going into


the Common Market will make it easier for them to pay higher wages in future?

Mr. Mills: Yes, Sir. I could not agree more. I am sure that this is a chance we ought to take and that it will benefit the whole of agriculture—by which I mean both farmers and farm workers.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many civil servants in his Department are being trained in European Economic Community practices to undertake work in Brussels after 1st January, 1973; and whether they are proficient in at least one European language other than English.

Mr. Prior: Officers with responsibilities in connection with the EEC are being given appropriate training. This has included special courses at the Ecole Nationale ďAdministration in Paris and other training organised by the Civil Service College and my Department. Many officers are being given intensive training in appropriate languages. It is not possible at this stage to say how many of my Department's officers will eventually undertake work in Brussels.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is of the utmost importance that we should have the highest possible calibre of officials in Brussels once we have acceded to the Treaty and that these officials should be fully conversant with the Continental practice of interpretation of the regulations of the Treaty in a way which seems to make all the difference, certainly in some Continental countries, in respect of their national interests? Will he take special care to see that we have the very highest quality of people available?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. There are two different problems involved. There are those who are members of the Commission and there are those who are members of the Civil Service and who will do the work for this country. On the whole, we think that those people—the latter—can probably best serve the country by being based here and going over to Brussels. They must know the languages, and they must know what they are talking about.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many Ministers in

his Department are proficient in foreign languages, and in which languages?

Mr. Prior: I am not absolutely certain which languages my hon. Friends speak, but I know that the Minister of State can speak fluent French because I have heard him late in the evening.

Bottled Fruit Drinks

Mrs. Doris Fisher: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider seeking to introduce legislation to control the quality and strength of bottled fruit drinks to enable the housewife to determine whether she is getting value for money.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Regulations now in force prescribe minimum requirements for the content and labelling of soft drinks including fruit ones.

Mrs. Fisher: Many of these products are labelled "fruit flavoured", which means nothing to the housewife. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the legislation protects the consumer?

Mr. Stodart: These regulations stem from 1970 and they exempt manufacturers from putting ingredients on the labels until 1976. But in view of what I have read in the Press today of the emphasis placed by the spokesman of the National Association of Soft Drinks Manufacturers on label stocks as being a stumbling block to achieving what I believe is a good thing, I intend to ask that when new labels are required before then they shall anticipate the 1976 requirements.

Commonwealth Sugar Agreement

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements have been made for the continuance of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement following negotiations between the European Economic Community, Mauritius and other Common wealth sugar-producing countries.

Mr. Prior: Detailed arrangements for Commonwealth sugar after the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement expires at the end of 1974 will be negotiated between the enlarged Community and the Commonwealth countries concerned, within the framework of the assurances already given by the Community.

Mr. Milne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is being less than truthful in his answer? Meetings have already taken place between the Commonwealth sugar-producing countries and the EEC, and the Commonwealth countries are alarmed by the wide discrepancy between the attitude of the EEC in relation to their future and the statement made in this House by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster following the negotiations. Will the right hon. Gentleman stop hoodwinking the Commonwealth countries and the British public on this matter?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. It is true that Mauritius has recently completed negotiations with the EEC to accede to the present Yaoundé Convention, but that specifically excludes sugar, for which the arrangements are exactly the same as they were before.

Mr. Marten: Will my right hon. Friend read again President Pompidou's television broadcast of 11th April, in which he said:
Tomorrow Europe will be in a zone of privileged prosperity in the world.
Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind and say that he equally wants Mauritius to be in a zone of prosperity in the world?

Mr. Prior: That is why we went to such enormous trouble—with, I thought, my hon. Friend's concurrence—to negotiate a settlement which was very favourable indeed to the Commonwealth sugar producers.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister prepared now to seek ratification with the EEC of the Lancaster House agreement with the Commonwealth sugar producers?

Mr. Prior: The Lancaster House agreement was accepted by the EEC. It was also accepted by all the Commonwealth sugar-producing countries. I prefer to accept their acceptance rather than the hon. Gentleman's.

River Authorities (Organisation)

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he is having with representatives from internal drainage boards on the consultative document on the reorganisation of river authorities.

Mr. Peter Mills: My right hon. Friend has consulted the Association of Drainage Authorities. He hopes to make an announcement soon on the future organisation of land drainage. There will then be further consultation on implementation.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that members of internal drainage boards are anxious that the happy relationship built up with his right hon. Friend and his Department should not be severed by the new proposals? Is he further aware that members of internal drainage boards feel that these are matters which must be dealt with locally and not by bodies which are a long way from the places affected?

Mr. Mills: My right hon. Friend knows the concern felt by many of my hon Friends on this point and has considerable sympathy with their views. There will be an early announcement.

Mr. Spearing: While appreciating the necessity for close relations between the Ministry and the internal drainage boards may I ask the hon. Gentleman to say whether the Government are considering any organisation of these boards as such?

Mr. Mills: My right hon. Friend is considering all these matters because there has been a fair amount of consultation. He will be making an early decision.

Beef Consumption

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of beef consumption he expects will be met from home produced supplies in 1972–73.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: In the fatstock year April, 1972, to March, 1973, home-fed production is expected to provide some 80 per cent. of the total supplies of beef and veal available for consumption in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Morrison: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with that proportion for home production and does he think that home production will be able to meet total demand in view of falling world supplies and falling imports?

Mr. Stodart: Yes, sir. There has been a general upward trend over the past three years in beef production and I am certain


that the increase in the guaranteed price announced in the recent review for fat cattle and beef will encourage this further.

Mr. Deakins: Does the hon. Gentleman expect that percentage to change if and when we become members of the Common Market?

Mr. Stodart: I would expect that production at home would continue to rise.

Vinegars

Mr. John E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will, in specifying food standards, require vinegars to be clearly defined by categories for example as malt or wine vinegar, whether sold as a main product or used as an ingredient in other foods.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The Food Standards Committee Report on Vinegars was published in January, 1972. My right hon. Friend will consider the recommendations in that report, including those on the specific names of vinegar, in the light of representations from interested parties before he makes any regulations.

Mr. Hill: In reaching his decisions on this useful report, will my hon. Friend give full weight to the representations of consumer and enforcement authority associations since one of the prime objects of the Food Standards Committee is to enable the housewife better to know exactly what she is buying?

Mr. Stodart: I take the point which my hon. Friend made and also the points which have been made in the many representations which we have received. All of these will be given full consideration.

Beer

Mr. Harper: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he can now state what was the average gravity of beer in 1971.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The average gravity of all beer brewed in the United Kingdom in 1971 was 1036·70 degrees.

Mr. Harper: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when that reply is compared with the reply which I received on 18th January of this year it is misleading,

to say the least? Is he aware that the breweries are becoming monopolistic and that the public are aware that they are being taken for a ride, not for a short time but for all the time? Will he therefore accept that the public are not getting value for money and take some action, because if he does not—[Hon. Members: "Too long."]—everyone will say that the generous contributions of the brewers to the Tory Party are preventing the Government from doing so?

Mr. Stodart: On 18th January 1 informed the hon. Gentleman that the average gravity of all beer brewed in 1970 was 1,036·66 degrees. The move in 1971 is insignificant, but it is at least upwards.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOW INCOMES (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE)

Mr. Redmond: asked the Prime Minister if, at his next meeting with officials of the Trades Union Congress, he will discuss the measures the Government have taken to assist those with lowest incomes.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I should be happy to discuss the Government's record in this field with the TUC.

Mr. Redmond: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the report issued before the Budget by the Institute of Fiscal Studies showing that the people with the lowest incomes in this country have improved their position by 28 per cent. as a result of measures taken by this Government? Would it not be useful to get that purely non-party body to revise its report in the light of the Budget and would not the information thus produced be invaluable in the present rail dispute?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps it may be possible for the Institute to carry these matters further. The study which it has made and the figures given provide confirmation of the effectiveness of our policies. I agree generally with the conclusions. It must also be recognised that some of the detailed calculations of any study of this kind have to be based on certain assumptions, which the author has made.

Mr. Thorpe: Whether or not the country shares the Prime Minister's satisfaction about this, is he aware that my colleagues and I have been conducting a survey of low-income groups throughout the country and have found some horrifying cases of people who are on incredibly low rates of pay—out-workers, catering staff, agricultural workers, I could go through them? Would he and the Government give attention to the possibility of guaranteed minimum earnings of at least£20 a week?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman would like to give us the information which he and his colleagues have gathered, we could have that examined, too. It is apparent that in general, and in manufacturing industry in particular, there is now a movement towards a basic guaranteed wage of£20 a week.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Prime Minister aware that it would cost only£26 million to restore the price of school milk to its 1970 level? Could he say why this could not have been done in a Budget in which£1,200 million was given away to the better-off?

The Prime Minister: It is difficult to think of a more misleading remark than that contained in the last supplementary question. The Budget allowed£1,200 million to remain in the pockets of those in this country paying taxation—in exactly the same way right through the income brackets. This has been generally welcomed throughout the country as being a measure helpful to all those paying tax. In addition, more than two million people were taken out of paying tax altogether.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Sir Gilbert Longden: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Commonwealth Secretary General on how best the developing and developed countries of the Commonwealth can be associated with the European Economic Community after the United Kingdom is a member of it.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir, but the Community's offer of three options made in the enlargement negotiations

extends to the 20 developing Commonwealth countries referred to in the Treaty of Accession. Separate arrangements have been made for the strengthening of trade relations between the developed Commonwealth countries and the Community, and the joint declaration of intent on the development of trade relations with the developing Asian Commonwealth countries expresses the will to extend and strengthen these relations by means of appropriate solutions.

Sir Gilbert Longden: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is no reason why the Commonwealth links should not be anything but strengthened by our joining the Community? Is he further aware that I am hopeful that he will do all in his power, in collaboration with the Commonwealth Secretary-General, to ensure that our partners in the Commonwealth make the most of the opportunities which will be available to them?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All except one of the Commonwealth countries will have a permanent relationship with the enlarged Community. The Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Secretariat chaired a meeting in London on 5th and 6th April which was attended by representatives of Commonwealth countries, who discussed the various arrangements open to them. We were represented at official level so that we could give any advice for which the Commonwealth countries asked. In this way the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Secretariat can best handle the problem. This enables these countries to discuss the various options among themselves, as well as with the Secretary-General and with our own official advisers.

Mr. Milne: Is the Prime Minister aware that he is far too complacent on this issue, that during the negotiations with the Six too little was done to protect Commonwealth interests and that beyond the transitional period there is no protection and no guaranteed assistance to Commonwealth countries?

The Prime Minister: I cannot accept those statements, nor are they supported by the views of the Commonwealth Governments

Sir Bernard Braine: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the decision of the 20 Commonwealth countries eligible for Common Market association to consult together on trade and to hold a ministerial conference later this year is a constructive approach which merits the fullest approval of and co-operation from the British Government? Does he also agree that the best service that the British Government can give to Commonwealth countries is by persuading our Common Market partners not to insist on reverse preferences as a means of carving out for themselves some special sphere of influence and thereby encouraging economic warfare between competing Power groups?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is referring to the 20 developing countries. There are also arrangements for the other countries, which I mentioned in my answer. The question of reverse preferences, as my hon. Friend knows, is difficult and will have to be considered in the discussions on the third Yaoundé Convention, negotiations for which will start in 1973. I cannot give any undertaking on what the outcome of that conference will be on reverse preferences.

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the Government's decision to hold a plebiscite in Northern Ireland, he will now agree to have one on entry into the Common Market.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Government's intention to hold periodical plebiscites on matters connected with Northern Ireland, he will initiate a similar type of plebiscite for British citizens on issues connected with matters affecting British entry into the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. In the United Kingdom, we have a fully effective and representative parliamentary system—[Laughter.]—I am sorry that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway should deride their own parliamentary system—for debating and deciding issues such as entry into the European Communities. It is precisely because in Northern Ireland there has not been the same confidence in all sections of the community in the parliamentary system that the

Government have proposed regular plebiscites as a means of reaching a decision on the issue of the Border.

Mr. Marten: Although the Prime Minister might regard my supplementary question as marginal, hypothetically, if tonight or early tomorrow morning the House of Commons in its wisdom should approve a referendum, will the Prime Minister accept that and regard it as the consent of the people through the parliamentary machine?

The Prime Minister: The consent of the people has already been given through the parliamentary machine by a majority of 112 approving the policy of Her Majesty's Government. I never answer hypothetical questions from my hon. Friend, even if they are only marginal.

Mr. Lewis: Since the Prime Minister has agreed to periodical plebiscites in Northern Ireland, has already held a plebiscite in Gibraltar and appears to be imposing the equivalent of a plebiscite on the railway workers, will he ask the railway workers whether they agree to the 12½ per cent. increase and also to the 20 per cent. increase to the Chairman of the Railways Board and other higher-paid executives?

The Prime Minister: I think the House recognises that the problem in Northern Ireland is difficult because Northern Ireland politics for 50 years have been based on the question of the Border. Her Majesty's Government made this proposal in an endeavour to take that issue out of the normal daily politics of Northern Ireland, so that the two communities could live together more peaceably. As the hon. Gentleman's own leader said when he was Prime Minister, the situation in Gibraltar is entirely different, because Gibraltar does not have a parliamentary system such as that of the United Kingdom. In reply to the hon. Gentleman's question about railway workers, the Government have no power whatever to impose a ballot on any organisation.

Sir F. Bennett: Does the Prime Minister accept that many of his hon. Friends are completely convinced of the rightness of what he says on a Common Market referendum, as the issue has been debated through the normal parliamentary channels, but are not yet convinced


of the effectiveness of a plebiscite in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Of course I am prepared to accept that. It has been well recognised that different points of view about this may be expressed in Northern Ireland, and certainly a different point of view has been expressed in the Republic of Ireland. This is a proposal which Her Majesty's Government put forward when I made the statement to the House of Commons.

Mr. Heffer: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to have hinted at an early General Election and the Prime Minister this afternoon has clearly ruled out a referendum, why do not the Government support the idea of a General Election so that the people can be consulted on our entry to the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: Parliament gave its decision on the question of principle on the Second Reading of the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party recently pointed out to the House, at no time before the last General Election did any party say that it was necessary to have another General Election to deal with the successful outcome of the European negotiations.

Oral Answers to Questions — WILD LIFE (CONSERVATION)

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with special responsibility for preventing the import unto the United Kingdom of all products arising from the slaughter of endangered species of wild life.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Import control of animal products in the interests of conservation is a matter involving the powers and responsibilities of a number of my right hon. Friends, all of whom work closely together.

Dr. Gilbert: Although the Government have recently made a welcome step forward, they seem to be dragging their feet in comparison with certain other countries. Should we not be giving a lead, since this idea is supported on both sides of the House? Will the Prime Minister consider making it clear that rich and insensitive women who wear

coats made from leopard skins will not be welcome at Government functions in future?

The Prime Minister: I am against all forms of discrimination, especially at any hospitality which I offer. The hon. Gentleman is not justified in saying that the Government are dragging their feet. We have taken the action which the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, and we believe that the next step should be an international convention, as proposed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, which we strongly support. I think what he and most hon. and right hon. Members of the House would like to see is an international convention which covers these matters as widely as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIDCUP

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Sidcup.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave last Tuesday to a Question from the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant).—[Vol. 834, c. 1020.]

Mr. Skinner: Is there any truth in the rumour that the Prime Minister is asking the local Conservative Party officials to scrap their antediluvian rule book and arrange for a ballot to establish with full-hearted consent who is to be the next Tory Party candidate? Is there any truth in the other rumour that the Prime Minister is anxious to get the Isle of Thanet seat?

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. McMaster: asked the Prime Minister what plans he now has to pay an official visit to Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to pay a further official visit. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has spent much of the time since his appointment in Northern Ireland: he will continue to do so, and also intends that a Minister of his Department should be present there at all times.

Mr. McMaster: In view of the serious deterioration of the situation in Northern Ireland in the last few days, is my right hon. Friend aware that a visit by him to see the extent of the terror would be greatly appreciated by the much-maligned majority? If he cannot go there, will he take steps to inform the population of Northern Ireland how democracy and law and order are to be restored to every part of the Province?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows about the problem of law and order, but I do not understand his point about democracy. Northern Ireland is represented in this Parliament by the hon. Gentleman, among others, and there is a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who is responsible to this Parliament. In that respect it is very much like other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Duffy: When the Prime Minister receives advice in future from the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), will he bear in mind that the present crisis in Northern Ireland has its roots in the policy which was supported in this House, uncritically for many years, by that hon. Member and by some of his hon. Friends from Ulster?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I try not to go back into the past on matters connected with Northern Ireland, because

right hon. Friend the Secretary of state for Northern Ireland and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are trying desperately to establish in Northern Ireland a climate and atmosphere in which violence may be reduced and the community may be able to live together, so that we may find a solution to the constitutional problems.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the Prime Minister make it absolutely clear that he has no objection, either in principle or in practice, to the complete integration of Northern Ireland inside the United Kingdom if the majority of people so desire it?

The Prime Minister: This is a matter which must be discussed with all those concerned. Our objective must be to try to find a solution that is acceptable not only to a majority or minority, but to the people of Northern Ireland as a whole.

Mr. McMaster: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN

Edward Rowlands, esquire, for Merthyr Tydfil.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 15th March.]

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRISin the Chair]

Clause 1

SHORT TITLE AND INTERPRETATION

3.32 p.m.

The Chairman: I have a short statement to make to the Committee which concerns the grouping of the Amendments which we shall be discussing today and deals with how that grouping came about.
Hon. Members may be wondering how it happens that the remaining Amendments to Clause 1 have been re-arranged. All the Amendments from No. 23 onwards come at exactly the same point in the Bill, seeking to add a new subsection (5) to the Clause.
Last Friday instructions were given for 11 consecutive Amendments from No. 40 to No. 202 inclusive to be withdrawn and subsequently for identical Amendments to be re-tabled. The effect is that the Amendment No. 23 relating to the General Election and Amendment No. 205 relating to an advisory referendum are now placed next to each other on the Notice Paper. I believe that this was the objective behind the instructions given by the hon. Members concerned to the Public Bill Office last Friday.
A further result is that the 11 Amendments have lost their original place on the Notice Paper and now appear as the last Amendments tabled to the Clause. In order to try to avoid unnecessary confusion, I gave instructions that those Amendments should retain their original numbers. I hope that this will meet the convenience of the Committee

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Amendment No. 210 has not been called. I know that it is not your custom to give your reasons for not selecting an Amendment, but I wonder whether you could say whether the Amendment is out of order or whether

for some reason you have decided not to select it.

The Chairman: I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Amendment is not out of order. It is simply that I have not selected it, and, as the Committee knows, the Chair does not discuss the reasons for non-selection.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: On a point of order, Sir Robert. You said that certain instructions were given to the Public Bill Office about two Amendments which appear on the Notice Paper. You will appreciate that some of us are not concerned in making those representations because we are not signatories to the Amendments in question. However, some of my hon. Friends and I find ourselves in extraordinary difficulty since one of the grouped Amendments relates to a General Election. This—I do not intend to go into the merits—is a matter of procedure adopted by Oppositions from time immemorial and often with good cause. There is then an Amendment on a totally different matter; namely, on the subject of a referendum. This subject has excited some controversy not merely between parties but within parties.
It is, therefore, somewhat extraordinary that two such Amendments are to be grouped together. Some of us believe that it is right that such an important departure from constitutional practice should be given the dignity of a separate debate. Since political events have been so traumatic that they have caused the resignation of many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen from high office, albeit in a "shadow" capacity, some of us feel that this is a matter in respect of which the arguments for and against should be independently canvassed in Committee and should not be mixed up with some conventional, ordinary suggestion for a General Election. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has referred to the suggestion of a referendum as repugnant, and something to which he would never be a party. This makes it important that we should have a separate debate on this distinct subject.
May I say—[Hon. Members: "Too long."] I am sorry if I offend those hon. Members who have always been so anxious to avoid points of order on this Bill. I hope they will realise that this


is an exceptional intervention in a Committee that is not accustomed to points of order on this Bill. We have before us an Amendment tabled by the official Opposition coupled with a rebel Amendment from the Tory Party. [Interruption.] With all respect to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), the Amendment is not what I would regard as a strictly orthodox Tory Amendment.
I respectfully suggest, finally, that the House will be interested to hear debates on both these matters. They are different, and they should be accorded separate debates.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. While I welcome the fact that we have at last aroused the interest of the Liberal Party in this Bill—I congratulate the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) on his maiden speech and I assure him that we look forward to hearing him again—I am sure that you will confirm that these same representations have been made on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We have pressed very strongly that these two matters should be debated separately. Following these fresh representations, if it were your wish to have separate debates we should agree eagerly since that was our original proposition to you.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. Some of us are in difficulty. Over the past weekend the Leader of the Opposition has said on the radio that he does not want a referendum in any case and that he wants a General Election.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrew, West) rose——

The Chairman: Order. I do not think we are serving any profitable purpose by pursuing this matter. I have the answer ready to give the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), but I will hear the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) if he undertakes to be brief.

Mr. Buchan: Even though you may have the answer ready, Sir Robert, you might add the reminder that the Leader of the Liberal Party voted for a referendum in 1969.

Mr. Thorpe: No, I did not.

The Chairman: I shall not add to that, because it has nothing to do with me. The right hon. Member for Devon, North and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) have asked about the grouping together of these two Amendments. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is right; he and his colleagues have made representations to me that they would like to see two separate debates. After careful consideration, I decided that the best interests of the Committee would not be served thereby, and I exercised by authority accordingly. However, there will be a Division on each Amendment.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. I am genuinely puzzled. This is only the second occasion during my time in Parliament that I have raised a point of order. So I do not do it frivolously. It seems to me that the object of a Committee stage is to examine each distinctive issue and to have a clear and distinctive debate upon each issue. Obviously I do not ask you to justify your decision. However, I feel that the criteria upon which you have reached your judgment should be clear. It seems to me that there are three. The first is the fact that it is——

The Chairman: Order. I am not encouraging points of order, but I think that if the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) had raised more points of order he would have known that his present point has no substance. I have to make decisions about the grouping and selection of Amendments. It is the prerogative that the House has given freely to the Chairman of Ways and Means and to Mr. Speaker, in appropriate conditions. I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. All that he is doing is querying my selection, and that is out of order.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Mr. Russell Johnston rose——

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Sir Robert, will you add one point to your lucid ruling by way of deprecating the use by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) of pejorative epithets in describing our Amendments as "rebel" and "unorthodox", especially in view of the fact that a referendum was advocated by Mr. Asquith, who combined the rôles of Leader of the Liberal Party and of Prime Minister, a combination


which the right hon. Gentleman seems unlikely to emulate?

The Chairman: I much prefer to pour oil on troubled waters than to add fuel to the flames.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to my point of order, Sir Robert. I was dealing with a matter of some importance. Assuming that the Amendment which proposes a General Election were carried, what would be the point of a referendum, especially since the Leader of the Opposition has said that he does not want a referendum in any case?

The Chairman: That is a point that we shall deal with if and when we get to it.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Further to my point of order, Sir Robert. While it is true that I have not raised many points of order, I have listened to a great many, which may account for my geting into bad habits. I should like your elucidation upon whether the same criteria as you deploy in selecting Amendments are deployed in deciding which Amendments shall have separate Divisions. If that is the case, as I suspect, I am deeply puzzled as to why two issues which are quite different should be lumped together.

The Chairman: I am afraid that it is difficult for the Committee to discover all the inscrutability of the Chairman's mind in these matters. I must ask the hon. Member for Inverness to rely upon me to do my best in the not exactly easy task which I am very happy to shoulder on behalf of the Committee.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 2, line 23, at end add:
(5) This Act shall come into force on a date to be appointed by Statutory Instrument passed by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament, but no such date shall be appointed until a General Election has first been held and the express consent of the British people thereby obtained.

The Chairman: As the Committee knows, with this Amendment we shall consider Amendment No. 205, at end add:
(5) This Act shall come into force on a day to be appointed by Statutory Instrument passed by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament, but no such date shall be appointed

until a consultative advisory referendum, having no binding effect upon the Government, has first been held, thereby enabling the Government to assess the extent to which the Treaty of Accession has the full-hearted support of the British people
No. 242, at end add:
(5) This Act shall come into force on a day to be appointed by Statutory Instrument passed by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament, but no such date shall be appointed until a plebcscite has first been held, thereby enabling the Government to assess the extent to which the Treaty of Accession has the full-hearted support of the British people.
No. 254, at end add:
(5) This Act shall come into force on a day to be appointed by statutory instrument passed by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament, but no such date shall be appointed until a plebiscite has been held in Northern Ireland, thereby enabling the Government to assess the extent to which the Treaty of Accession has the whole-hearted support of the people in Northern Ireland.
No. 255, at end add:
(5) This Act shall come into force on a day to be appointed by statutory instrument passed by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament, but no such date shall be appointed until a plebiscite has been held in Scotland, thereby enabling the Government to assess the extent to which the Treaty of Accession has the whole-hearted support of the people of Scotland.
and No. 256, at end add:
(5) This Act shall come into force on a day to be appointed by statutory instrument passed by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament, but no such date shall be appointed until a plebiscite has been held in Wales, thereby enabling the Government to assess the extent to which the Treaty of Accession has the whole-hearted support of the people in Wales.

Mr. Shore: While my remarks will be directed mainly to Amendment No. 23, I shall stray a little into the territory covered by some of the other Amendments.
The issue before us today is not, on this occasion at any rate, whether we are for or against Britain's entry into the European Economic Communities; at least, that is not the main issue. We are concerned today with whether the electors, the British people, are to be allowed to express their wish at the ballot box.
We have made it clear on numerous occasions—and we have had some assistance from right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House—why we think that it would be not merely unwise but very near a disaster if we were to join


on anything like the terms which the Government have negotiated. For their part, the Government believe that they have brought back from Paris and Brussels arrangements which would increase the prosperity and, they say, the security of this country. But our belief is that we should now submit our respective judgments on this matter to the electors for their decision.
The case for doing it on this matter is overwhelming. There will be very few who will dispute the magnitude or the gravity of the changes that membership of the European Communities involves. This is a turning point in our national history and in the history of Parliament. We have been asked to approve treaties which are grounded in the belief that we have now, and will continue to have in the future, a more intimate and close association with the peoples of Western Europe than with any other nation or group of nations in different parts of the world. We are asked, as General de Gaulle and President Pompidou have both put it, to "moor our island" permanently to the Continent of Europe, to give preference in all our future dealings to the nations of the Community, and to treat in future as third countries all those in the Commonwealth and elsewhere with whom we have hitherto had our closest ties. In short, we are asked to envisage and accept not just a closer alliance and friendship with the Common Market countries, which most people in Britain would welcome, but arrangements which will make us part of a single European community, a single economic and monetary union, and probably a political union as well.
As part of this new destiny we are being asked to change the constitution of our country not at the margin but at the very heart and centre. We are being asked to end what we have always been led to believe was the very pillar on which our democracy was built—the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament.
Henceforth, if we go in, agencies outside this land will have the right to make laws which are binding upon the British people without the consent or perhaps, as those who have been with us on the debates on Clause 1 so far will readily concur, without even the knowledge of this House. Those same agencies will

have the right to impose taxes on the people and to determine how those revenues will be spent. In all matters of law covered by the treaties, it will be the courts of Europe, not the courts of Britain, which will have the final authority. For the first time we shall have a written constitution in the texts of the Rome and other treaties, not a word of which have we even helped to write.
This is not all. As our discussions on Clause 1 have made clear, the area of transfer of sovereignty and the abrogation of parliamentary control is neither clearly denned nor even static. At the moment of entry there will be established in this country a substantial bridgehead of Community law, the result of 13 years of Common Market regulations and directives, but this bridgehead is destined and programmed to grow as the Community exercises its undoubted right to further legislation.
The Bill concedes unnecessarily and even wantonly a device to the communities: the requirement that only an affirmative Resolution is needed to sanction major new advances which could progressively bring the British economy under their control.
I hope that no one will argue about the importance of what is at stake. What is envisaged is totally unprecedented, involving a great transfer of power from this Parliament and, as a result, dimishing the rights and the power of every man, woman and child in these islands.
It is a curious coincidence that the editor of The Times, in planning his issues, manages to achieve not only today but on previous occasions when we have debated these matters a most authoritative article, which I hope every hon. Member will have read, by Professor Wade, whom I regard as being among the very leading authorities on the British Constitution and constitutional law. Anyone who has read his article today will not accuse me of exaggerating the case or the issues involved in putting my points as I have just put them.
At times I am tempted to believe that The Times is edited nowadays by what I might call the schizophrenic character of Dr. Rees and Mr. Mogg. Dr. Rees is a wise and expert person of great balance of mind, who gets for us on the


centre left page of The Times articles of great authority, fairness and openness. But late at night a Mr. Mogg, somewhere in Printing House Square, gets to work and produces editorials on the other side of the centre page which accuse us, and those who do no more than articulate as best they can the very arguments and concerns which were put so lucidly on the left hand page, of being demented, unbalanced, unfair or even worse. It is not for me to try to sort out that problem. However, we are grateful to Dr. Rees, even though we can only continue to deplore Mr. Mogg.
In the light of what I have said, we have to consider whether some special act of consent is necessary to legitimise these great changes, and an important, but secondary, question is the form that that act of consent should take. In the affairs of a nation, precisely what constitutes a matter of exceptional importance will always be open to dispute, particularly in a country such as our own which has not the guidance of a written constitution. But we have practices, precedents and conventions which should guide our conduct.
The first great step along the road to universal franchise was taken in 1832 with the explicit authority, given to the Government of the day, of a general Election. When the balance of the constitution was changed in 1911, with the Commons exerting its supremacy over the House of Lords, no fewer than two General Elections were thought to be necessary in order to sanction that change. Both between and after those dates there have been many other important constitutional changes, but these have either been agreed between the major parties concerned, and, therefore, were not matters of dispute—as, for example, successive extensions of the franchise in the nineteenth century—or they have been based upon a specific mandate sought and obtained at the previous General Election.
This brings me to the first and, in a sense, the most obvious reason why a General Election is now required. The Government have no mandate for this Measure. In their election manifesto—the words are familiar to us all—they wrote:
Our sole commitment is to negotiate; no more, no less.

I do not deride the Government for those words. The negotiations had not even begun in June, 1970, when the last General Election was held. It was not in their power or in the power of any other party to put the matter to the electorate for their decisison in advance of negotiations.
The situation now is very different. So far as the Government are concerned, the negotiations are over. In January this year they published the two volumes of the Treaties of Accession setting out for the first time in considerable detail, although with some curious and significant omissions, the terms which they had obtained. So now, unlike in June, 1970, the matter can be put, if not with total, then with considerable, clarity to the British electorate.
The House will recall other words which have been used in these debates by the Prime Minister. He said, not once but on several occasions, that it would be necessary to obtain the full-hearted consent of the British Parliament and people before Britain could enter the European Communities.
It will not do for the Prime Minister today to pretend that he did not really mean the people at all and that he meant only the consent of Parliament. That is not worthy of him.
I believe that there is another explanation; not the one that the Prime Minister has given. It is that contrary to the expectations which he had when he first made that pledge, the British people have not rallied to the pro-Market calls; they have shown a stubborn and consistent dislike of the proposition of membership—an opposition which has survived all the efforts of Ministers, all the expensive publicity of last summer's campaign, and the almost endless pro-Market chorus of the Press.
4.0 p.m.
In May, 1970, when the right hon. Gentleman first made that speech, he must have thought that terms could be obtained in the negotiations which would command the support of all. Indeed, had he been negotiating with the Five there might have been a different outcome, but as we know—and no one better than the Prime Minister—the negotiations from the start have been a British and French affair, and President Pompidou has exacted a price which I believe no one in this


country other than the most fanatical Marketeer is ready to pay.
The result is that the Opposition have rejected the terms of entry, and this, of course, provides an additional and major reason why the matter should now be put to a General Election. We have said that no Parliament can bind its successor. We consider ourselves free not only to repeal this Bill but to renegotiate the terms of entry and, if that cannot be achieved, to go our own way. That has been said with authority from this side of the House.
In these circumstances I cannot believe that it is sensible or in the national interest for the Prime Minister to go charging ahead. A decision of this kind, if it is to be taken at all, should have the support of the major parties in the State. But if that cannot be obtained, and if it is to go ahead as the policy of the Government of the day and of one party, then it is surely all the more important that the Prime Minister should obtain the clear consent of the British people as he embarks on this policy.
It is not only ourselves whom we have to consider. There are other nations in EFTA and the Commonwealth which will be much influenced by what we do. There are, of course, the countries of the Common Market as well. This matter should not be left in doubt when so much is at stake and so many other peoples are involved.
There is a further and even more important reason why an Act of Assent is necessary before entry takes place. Whatever our shortcomings may be as a nation, however much we are criticised and criticise ourselves—our economic performance and in other ways—we have in this country a political system which for very manys years has served us well and is looked upon enviously by many countries.
We are a democracy. The great parties of the State are democratic parties. Extremist groups exist only at the fringe of our political system and have never won any marked public support. We have, as a result, despite many vicissitudes, enjoyed a long experience of peaceful politics and peaceful change.
Why should this be so? Why, more than most other European countries have

we had this good fortune? More than any other factor, it is because there is in British politics a continuing invitation to the practice and methods of peaceful political change. There is a knowledge that political power lies in Parliament and that if majorities can be won there, that power can be used to achieve the purposes that the majority wills.
Of course no party of change, and certainly no democratic Socialist Party, believes that all it must do is to win a General Election. That is only the first of the many battles that it has to fight. But because Parliament is supreme, is subject only to opinion and the shadow of the next General Election and because its powers are unfettered, Parliament is a most powerful engine for change.
The main theme in my adult political life and of post-war politics in Britain has been the extension of that political power to our economic, industrial and social affairs so that we can help to create in Britain a new and more just society.
Now we have to consider a new situation, one in which Parliament ceases to be supreme, and one in which laws that our own people may wish to change cannot be changed because the power of decision will no longer lie in Parliament. I believe that this will have a most profound and damaging effect on our political life.
We are living at a time when people are saying not that there is too much democracy in their lives but that there is too little; when they wish their voices to be heard on an ever-increasing number of matters; when they wish government to be closer and more sensitive to their needs. How, then, do we expect them to regard a transfer of power to such remote and bureaucratic agencies as the Commission in Brussels and the Council of Ministers in Paris?
Only last weekend we were lectured by the Lord Chancellor on decline in respect for the law. He said that civilisation could not exist without a legal foundation. We can probably agree with him on that, but he should have asked himself why the British have so widely earned for themselves a reputation for respect and obedience for the law.
This certainly does not depend on the power to enforce or the belief that the


law is wise. We have many unfair and often, one might say, unwise laws. What above all determines our attitude to the law is a respect for the process by which it is made. It is the knowledge that in our democratic and parliamentary system the citizen has the right to help make the laws which he is expected to obey. It is the knowledge that, provided he can with others win a majority in this House, objectionable laws can be repealed and new ones enacted.
There is a crucial connection between the vote and the law, a connection which has for so long given our society the stability and peace which we have enjoyed. The great damage that membership of the European Communities; will inflict is to break that connection. From the moment we go in we shall have to accept a large part of European law that no British Parliament can ever change. For the first time in our history the police will be asked to enforce, and the courts to give judgments on, laws which have no moral basis in the free consent of the British people.
These seem to be cogent reasons why the British people should not give up their powers of self-government to European agencies, and particularly to agencies which are not, and do not even claim to be, democratic agencies themselves. There is no question of transferring the democratic power of Parliament to a democratic power in Europe. It is a transfer from this House, based on democracy, to a Commission and Council in Europe. These are the effective organs of this European power.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Whether or not my right hon. Friend's description of the constitutional consequences of our entry is correct, may I ask him whether he is aware that he is no longer attacking the terms of entry into the Community? Will he make it clear, as he has done previously, that if we renegotiate the terms of entry and they are not satisfactory we shall not go in, while if we renegotiate the terms and they are satisfactory we shall go in and accept all the consequences of membership of the EEC?

Mr. Shore: If my hon. Friend had been with us on earlier occasions and had followed the debates that we have

had so far on Clause 1 he would have discovered not merely that there is, as it were, part of Community law built into the Treaty of Rome and all that flows from it but that a substantial part of the Bill has been wantonly added on—[Interruption.]—so that the Government are giving far greater powers than any requirements in the treaty itself. [Hon. Members: "Answer."] I wanted to come to my next point, on which I would say that the power that Parliament has——

An Hon. Member: The right hon. Gentleman has lost his place.

Mr. Shore: No. I beg your pardon, Sir Robert. I wanted to make the point that, following what I have said, whether or not I am right, or whether or not people accept my judgment about what is involved in joining the Common Market, whether they think that nevertheless, in spite of all the objections and the difficulties, this is the right course for this country to take, I believe—indeed, I cannot understand how anyone can take a different view—that this matter should be put to the people of this country for their especial and clear consent. That seems to be the most important thing of all.
Before I conclude, I must address myself briefly to the second question that I posed: how the necessary act of assent can be obtained? As we know, our country has in the past faced great constitutional issues, and where these have been in dispute between the major political parties a solution has been sought through a General Election. I have no doubt that a General Election is today the most suitable method that we can use.
Of course, there are minorities in all three political parties who take the contrary view to their official party policy. That is far from being an unprecedented situation in our political life. But what matters are the issues on which an election can be fought, and the lead issue today would clearly be entry to the European Communities on the basis of the Bill and the Treaty of Accession, with the electorate knowing which party is for and which party is against.

Mr. Mayhew: Against what?

Mr. Shore: Moreover, we are not saying in the Amendment that a General Election must be held at once; that the Government must be forced to the polls at a moment of great disadvantage to themselves. On the contrary, we have left the matter open, saying that it is for the Government to propose the entry date, but insisting only that the General Election be held before that moment arrives. But if this Amendment is defeated in the Lobby tonight, I hope the House will give its support to Amendment No. 205, which has yet to be moved, which asks for a consultative referendum.
There are some who disapprove of consulting the people in this way. They fear that it could be misused, or that it could be extended in its use to other areas far from that constitutional change which is now being considered. I understand this worry, though I do not share it. I see no reason to believe that it would be extended. As the record shows, Parliament considers referenda only when constitutional matters are at stake. This was last raised at a high level by Winston Churchill, when in 1945, shortly after the defeat of Germany but before the defeat of Japan, he was reluctant to break up the war-time coalition and offered Mr. Attlee, as an alternative to a General Election, a referendum to extend the life of the existing Parliament. Clearly, that was a special situation and a special measure. The other occasion when the matter was seriously discussed was in the discussion surrounding the Parliament Act, 1911, when once again the Conservative leader, Mr. Balfour, proposed that the referendum should be introduced.

Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that that suggestion to Mr. Attlee was turned down by Mr. Attlee on the basis that it was used only by those who were not democrats?

Mr. Shore: Mr. Attlee turned it down and got a General Election. That is what we are urging in the Amendment.

Mr. David Crouch: The right hon. Gentleman could help the House if he would say whether he was of his present opinion when he was a member of the Labour Administration which agreed to take Britain into the Common Market. Was he then in favour

of a General Election and referendum in respect of that decision?

Mr. Shore: I made a speech, which I think will be in the recollection of some hon. Members, when I was a member of the Cabinet of the previous Government, in which I said specifically that this was a matter which the politicians alone could not decide and that the people must consent. I said it as a Cabinet Minister then; I meant it, and I mean it now.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): To get the record absolutely clear, I think the right hon. Gentleman was referring to a speech he made in March, 1970. When his right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister was questioned about that speech he replied:
I am informed by Mr. Shore that he specifically ruled out any question of a plebiscite. That equally covers the word 'referendum'. That is not our policy.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Shore: I do not find that any trouble, for the very simple reason that what matters—I have tried to argue this point—is the consent of the British people. That is far more important on this occasion, much more important than the particular way in which that consent is obtained. Of course it matters that any referendum that may be held would have to be held in the most careful and scrupulous way, just as any other test of opinion is, normally at a General Election. But what matters is that the people of this country should have a chance of saying whether they share the vision of the Treasury Front Bench or whether they have a different view of their own future. That is what is at stake.
But on the evidence I have already quoted I cannot see that there is anything inherently un-British or dangerous about this device. When I recall that referenda are to be used by, amongst others, Norway and Denmark on precisely this issue of membership of the European Communities, I cannot accept that it has no place in a democratic system. But, above all, it is a matter of proportion. In the scale of things, there is no comparison whatever between the minor innovation of an advisory consultative referendum on this great constitutional


question and the major and unique change involved in our whole parliamentary and democratic system in membership of the European Communities. In terms of parliamentary sovereignty I would liken the one, the consultative referendum, to a scratch on the hand, and the other, membership of the European Communities, to the severing of an artery.
So, in this matter I shall listen, as the House and the nation will listen, with care to the views of those who, while disapproving of a consultative referendum, are strong and genuine advocates of a General Election, just as we shall listen——

Mr. Harold Lever: My right hon. Friend says that he regards membership of the European Communities as the equivalent of the severing of an artery. I am only trying to help him. I take it that he means that membership on these terms, in his view, would mean the equivalent of the severing of an artery.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On this Bill.

Mr. Shore: To help my right hon. Friend, what I was comparing here, in terms of the constitutional propriety of what is involved to the British parliamentary system, was the difference between having a single consultative referendum and joining the European Communities on these terms and the terms of the Bill. I say that the difference is really of that order of magnitude.
I said that we would listen—I shall certainly listen—to those who are in favour of a General Election and to those who are not in favour of a referendum. One can also make the same point, that those who genuinely believe in a referendum but cannot see that the matter can be faced at a General Election are entitled to be taken seriously as well. But what I am not prepared to accept is the views of those who are really saying "Whatever kind of test one can devise, basically we do not want it, whether it is an election, a referendum or anything else, because we, the politicians, have the right to decide, and the British people should have no choice in deciding these matters themselves."
I hope very much, in moving Amendment No. 23—undoubtedly our first choice and great preference—that this, our normal way of dealing with constitutional matters, will be favoured by the House. But if that should fail, we should, without embarrassment, accept the Amendment which follows it, on which we shall be asked to vote.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

The Chairman: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Rippon: Judging by the——

Mr. Neil Marten: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Amendment No. 205 has been joined with Amendment No. 23, and I think that it would be logical if, before my right hon. and learned Friend intervened, the case for that Amendment were made. May I, therefore, ask you to reconsider your calling priorities.

Mr. Rippon: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. If it would meet the convenience of the Committee, perhaps I could resume my seat now and endeavour to catch your eye after my hon. Friend has spoken.

The Chairman: So be it.

Mr. Marten: Thank you, Sir Robert, and I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for being so courteous, as he always is on these occasions.
May I thank you also, Sir Robert, for selecting Amendment No. 205 for debate, because the question of a referendum has aroused public interest. From what one reads in the opinion polls the country wants a referendum of some sort on this issue, and it is right that the country's Parliament should freely, in good humour, widely and without party discrimination or knocking, debate this important matter.
I should like to apologise, if I may—and I am sure that my right hon. Friends who designed this innocent, harmless and inoffensive Amendment will agree with me on this—for the effect that the Amendment has had. It was put down two or three weeks before I knew that M. Pompidou was having a referendum, but it has had a kind of fissile effect on the benches opposite. The word "fission"


has two meanings. In atomic energy it means the action of splitting into pieces, but in biology it means the division of an organism into new organisms as a mode of reproduction. I hope that in the interests of parliamentary democracy—which to me is the most important thing about which we are talking—the second happens fairly quickly, and that there is a united, healthy Opposition.
It may be that in drafting the Amendment we have erred in the choice of word. We are not particular about the word "referendum", and if my right hon. and learned Friend would like to substitute "plebiscite" I do not think we would object. The definition presents a difficulty. The Economist this week——

Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Is it possible to have the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) join the debate now?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Marten: The Economist this week tried to make the point that I was trying to make a moment ago, which was to define the distinction between a referendum and a plebiscite. It called in aid a Dr. Geoffrey Roberts who has written "A Dictionary of Political Analysis". I do not know who he is, but he defines a plebiscite as
A vote by an electorate on a proposed change of régime.
This is difficult, because one has to go on and define the extent of the change that he means, and also to define a régime. That shows the difficulty in trying to define the difference between the two words, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), who is an expert author on these great matters of referenda, will shortly take part in the debate, when I am sure he will deal with the various definitions.
In the House the other day my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I had a minor but, as always, friendly altercation about this issue, and subsequently I wrote to him for clarification. I hope he will not mind my quoting his letter, because it was public. He said:

I agree that dictionary definitions may say that the words 'plebiscite' and 'referendum' may be used interchangeably.
That was because I quoted from the smaller Oxford Dictionary to that effect.
As you indicate in your footnote, over the years they have acquired varying emotional connotations.
That was my postscript in ink, and not printed, in which I said that I normally connected plebiscites with people like Hitler and referenda with people like de Gaulle, but I now withdraw that since my right hon. and learned Friend has agreed to a plebiscite for Northern Ireland.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Simply as a matter of definition "plebiscite" is a wide word which means simply asking the people, while "referendum" is a narrower word which means asking the people on a particular subject. rather than on the general.

Mr. Marten: I am most grateful to the hon. and obviously very learned Gentleman.
My right hon. and learned Friend went on so say in his letter:
The point I was trying to make in the House was that although these are flexible words, there is a clear distinction between the circumstances in which a plebiscite has been proposed in Northern Ireland and those in which certain Members have urged the holding of a referendum on the European Community issue.
There I agree. It is the circumstances that are different, not the question whether it is a plebiscite or a referendum. I do not think it alters the fact whether in the Amendment we call it a plebiscite or a referendum.
It is not my case particularly to argue that it should be a referendum, a plebiscite or a complete opinion poll of the nation. It is that by one of those methods—and in essence they are all the same—the people of this country, who elected us to Parliament and gave us the powers that we have to hold in trust for them until the next General Election, should be given the chance to express their views on whether they consent wholeheartedly to the Government and Parliament signing away part of those powers—and this is a real surrender of powers—which they have entrusted to us. That is what the Bill so clearly does. In the days that we have spent in Committee so far it has become clear that we are


signing away a lot of the powers of this Parliament. To put it in an even simpler way, the people should be asked by a referendum what their views are, because the basic issue is the destiny of their country—no more, no less.
Some people may say that we have already voted on this issue, at the last General Election, but I hope that they will not repeat that nonsense during today's debate. To do so would only waste the time of the House, because all three parties had the same policy. With the exception of a few honourable constituencies—and Banbury was one of them—in which the electorate had the chance to vote for somebody who specifically promised that he would oppose entry into the Common market, generally the Government side followed the party line. Of course, it was then the official policy of both the Labour Party and the Liberal Party. Not for them was it ever a dead duck; it has always been a very live hen.
4.30 p.m.
But if during the last General Election one of the major parties had been against the Common Market, I would have accepted that it was an issue at the election, but it was not and the electorate has never been asked. So I hope that no one today will claim that that has been so.
The Conservative manifesto for the last General Election must in the nature of our parliamentary democracy be considered an important document and taken seriously, whatever party view one may take of its contents. Some of my hon. Friends will claim that it was clear to the electorate that we would go in. Fair enough. I agree that there is room for argument on this; but what is a great pity is the inclusion—it may have slipped in as these things do, in the rush of election time—of the phrase "no more, no less". Why put that in? Would it not have been better to say "Our sole commitment is to negotiate" and just leave it out altogether?
I have skimmed through the election addresses of my hon. Friends——

Mr. Harold Lever: Before or after the election?

Mr. Marten: After. It does not make any difference, but I saw them collectively

only after the election. Many of them repeated this expression, "no more, no less". Not many people buy these manifestos. [Laughter.] I bought the Labour Party one when I was in Opposition, and I found it very useful.

Mr. Laurance Reed: If one wanted to say that one was keen on going in but not at any price, would it not be reasonable to say that one's commitment was—to negotiate; no more, no less?

Mr. Marten: With respect, I believe that in his election address my hon. Friend said that he was in favour of a referendum.

Mr. Reed: I hope to have an opportunity of coming to this point, but let us stick to the point which I made to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Marten: My point was that I think, rightly or wrongly, that the expression crept in and was given currency during the election not only in election addresses but also in subsequent speeches by Conservative candidates on the basis of the manifesto. It is, therefore, up to us to take note of this and see that that misunderstanding is in some way honoured. I believe that the referendum, consultative as it is, is one way of doing so.

Mr. Rippon: I understood my hon. Friend to say that he read the Labour Party's election address before the election. I am not clear whether he read the Conservative Party's manifesto. If he did, he would have seen these words:
Our sole commitment is to negotiate; no more, no less. As the negotiations proceed, we will report regularly through Parliament to the country.
A Conservative Government would not be prepared to recommend to Parliament, nor would Members of Parliament approve, a settlement which was unequal or unfair. In making this judgment, Ministers and Members will listen to the views of their constituents and will have in mind, as is natural and legitimate, primarily the effect of entry upon the standard of living of the individual citizens whom they represent.
It was made perfectly clear that this was a decision for Parliament to make.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Were you listening?

Mr. Marten: An hon. Member opposite questions whether my right hon. and learned Friend was listening. I rather think that he could not have been. I was quoting from the same document as he has just quoted. The extension which he has just mentioned made not the slightest difference at all. If anything, it helped my case.
Second, my right hon. and learned Friend asked whether I had read the election manifesto of the Labour Party. I was referring not to the last election but to the one before. I said that it was when I was in opposition.

Mr. Edward Milne: The Chancellor of the Duchy has just intervened on the question of a referendum. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the result of the referendum was in the Chancellor's own constituency? Were not the people emphatically against entry? How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman consult them?

Mr. Marten: That is for my right hon. and learned Friend to answer when he intervenes, as I hope he will.
The guts of the thing, from the point of view of the House and the whole parliamentary system, and the last election and just before, is the speech about "full-hearted consent". I have that speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, here. It is a hand-out from the Conservative Central Office of a speech made at the British Chamber of Commerce in Paris on Tuesday, 5th May, 1970—a carefully drafted speech. I should like to quote from it, because some parts of it are sometimes left out. In the middle of page 6 we read:
It is precisely the readiness of the Six to undertake negotiations in this spirit which is questioned by many in Britain today.
There, he is talking about the people of Britain questioning. He went on:
For we should be clear that these are not only or even essentially transactions between Governments. Whatever the Government in power in Britain I do not myself believe that Parliament will approve a settlement which in the opinion of its members is unequal and unfair"—
[Interruption.] My right hon. and learned Friend must keep his cool; it will get hotter as we go on.

In making this judgment they will have in mind, as is natural and legitimate, primarily the effect of entry upon the standard of living of the individual citizen whom they represent. Nor would it be in the interest of the Community that its enlargement should take place except with the full-hearted consent of the Parliaments and peoples of the new member countries.
If, as the Prime Minister said at Question Time the other day, and as the Chancellor said just now, it was limited to Parliament, why put in the words "and peoples"? In the same way, why on earth put in the phrase "no more, no less"? I question the necessity of the words "and peoples", but they were put in with thought and care, in a prepared speech——

Mr. Russell Kerr: Before the election.

Mr. Marten: Indeed, before the General Election.
During the General Election "Daily Notes" were produced by the Conservative Research Department. Those on Friday, 5th June, reported a Press conference held by the Prime Minister on 2nd June, 1970—during the General Election. In this we read:
Mr. Heath repeated: '…I always said that you couldn't possibly take this country into the Common Market if the majority of the people were against it, but this is handled through the Parliamentary system'.
So there is a change, from Paris to London: suddenly, the parliamentary system is substituted for the people, who were so clearly defined in the Paris speech. A little earlier on he said:
The art of government surely must be to give leadership to a country and at the same time to take account of how far the lead you give is going to be supported by public opinion.
So here we have the two statements: first, that it is handled exclusively through the parliamentary system, and it must, as we know, have the full-hearted consent of that parliamentary system; and, secondly, the question of the support of public opinion. That is the evidence.
How about the full-hearted consent of Parliament, which we all accept is one of the two things that have to happen? This is very important. They were very wise words that the Prime Minister used; it was very wise indeed to have put down that pre-condition. What does the full-hearted consent of Parliament mean? Clearly, it does not mean 50 per cent.; clearly, it does not


mean just 51 per cent. It means full-hearted, the full hearts of Members of Parliament. Throughout this debate in the Committee stage have hon. Members noticed the fullness of heart of those who support entry into the European Community? Nothing has made so apparent the barrenness of the people who want to go into the Common Market than their absence during this debate. There has been no parliamentary enthusiasm for it when it has been necessary to get down and do some work on the matter.
So it has got to be something more substantial than 51 per cent., and I would say that it should be in the region of two-thirds. That is what other countries are requiring. I think Norway requires three-quarters, Denmark two-thirds, and so on. In a moment I will go into why we should have two-thirds also. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend want to intervene or does he want to go on talking?

The Chairman: Order. That is a very-dangerous thing for the hon. Gentleman to say. If he does that again I shall call the next speaker.

Mr. Marten: I thought that one of my hon. Friends was trying to intervene, and I was being very polite and asking him whether he wished to do so, but apparently he does not.
In the vote on 28th October there was a majority of 112, but that is only 56 point something per cent. of the Members of Parliament; that is not really a very full-hearted consent. What we have to decide, and decide finally, in this House is whether that was the vote on which this matter should be judged, and whether it can honestly be claimed by any rational person that that was the right vote, that one could effectively vote on something before one knew the terms of the treaty on which one was voting?
Was that the right moment to test the full-hearted consent? It is convenient to say that it was; I agree, and I give that entirely to my hon. Friends; but it was not the right moment. The right moment, of course, was on the Second Reading on 17th February. It was in that debate that this Parliament first knew the details of the negotiations which had been completed and, second, for the first time had details of the Treaty of Accession.

Thirdly, it had of course the legislation, and had had it for about a fortnight, and it did not take very long to read.
For all those reasons I believe that the Second Reading vote is the key vote on which this matter should be judged, and in support of my view I quote "Erskine May", 18th edition, Chapter 21, page 485. It says:
The second reading is the most important stage through which the bill is required to pass; for its whale principle is then at issue, and is affirmed or denied by a vote of the House…".
Well, it was affirmed, of course, by the House, but it did not receive the full-hearted consent of this House. Therefore, with a majority of eight, it completely failed to pass the test which I believe the Prime Minister had rightly set it.

[MissHARVIE ANDERSONin the Chair]

4.45 p.m.

So now we are thrown back on to the second test—the full-hearted consent of the people, which the Prime Minister said on 2nd June at his election conference he would require, and how far it is supported by public opinion. Perhaps I may call in aid again my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I hope the House will not think I am dragging up little matters in a rather legalistic way because these are major statements. On television on 27th February of this year when he was talking about the miners' strike the Prime Minister said:
The Government is just a group of people elected to do what the majority of us want to see done. That is what our way of life is about.
What do the majority of people want to see done? In relation to the Common Market the Government have said they do not want a referendum, so I do not know how they are going to find out except by opinion polls. My right hon. Friend is beginning to giggle at that, I believe. It may have been something else, but it looked like a movement of mirth.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, at Question Time on 14th March, replying to a question by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), I think it was, said:
…today's Gallup Poll shows that more than 50 per cent. of the people want our membership of the Communities to go ahead."—[Official Report, 14th March, 1972; Vol. 833, c. 297.]


So he has used the opinion polls to support his case. What he said was wrong, but I know how this happens; one is very busy and one gets notes for answers to supplementary questions and is not briefed very accurately. The opinion poll did not actually ask that question but something totally different. "Do you think it would be a good or bad thing for this country if the Government failed to get the support of Parliament?" That is a very different question. The second question was: "Do you think Britain's standing in the world would or would not be harmed if the Government fails to gain the support of Parliament?" Those were the questions; so it is not, as we were told in Parliament, that 50 per cent. of the people want our membership of the Communities to go ahead. I will leave that aside, however, because it was obviously the result of rather hurried briefing.

In March there were four opinion polls. I have averaged them out and the result is that 36 per cent. of the people favour going in and 44 per cent. are against. So, broadly speaking, I would say that the indications are that the people have not given their full-hearted consent.

Mr. Russell Kerr: To put it mildly.

Mr. Marten: To put it mildly, yes; and, of course, this is realised by those who wish to go in, and I believe that is basically why they oppose a referendum. It is up to them to explain it, so I will take it any further, but if they really believe that the British people are enthusiastic about going in, then I say let this be shown in a consultative referendum. What a wonderful start to this whole project of going into Europe to have the enthusiasm of, say, 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the people wanting to go in. How strong it would make the British Government's position if they had that! Therefore, I think the Government would be very wise to accept this Amendment tonight.
Some will say—I know this argument is coming and that it is to save time that I am taking a little longer in order to deal with all the arguments so that need not be raised ad nauseam—that this whole project of a referendum is alien to our traditional system of government. That was the broad basis of the criticism in

the correspondence columns of The Times when I wrote a letter and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) who unfortunately is not here, answered me. He said that this was alien to our traditional system of government; those were his words. But, then, so is this whole Bill; it is entirely alien to our system of government.
If they object to the referendum as being alien to our system of government, if they do not like things which are alien to our system of government, all those who object to the referendum ought to be opposing this Bill. But where are they? I say to my hon. Friends who want to go in that if—and it is a big "if"—we get into the Common Market and in the process of time, in two, three, four or ten years, the Council of Ministers decides to go ahead to a directly elected Parliament, which is one of the things that is on the tapis, and if the Council of Ministers then decides that this is an important constitutional innovation which should be put to a referendum of the people in the enlarged Common Market, will my hon. Friends who wish to go into the Common Market object to that? Will they use the veto and risk breaking up the whole Community, or will they accept that referendum? Perhaps we shall hear the answer to that question when they speak.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham will deal with the question whether it is alien, because the point he makes in his book is that five out of the last nine Conservative Prime Ministers in the last 60 years have proposed referenda. With one more Prime Minister now proposing a plebiscite on Northern Ireland, that makes six out of nine Prime Ministers. I stress that they were all Conservatives and that all the referenda were supposed to be binding, unlike the one proposed in the Amendment, which would be consultative and advisory and not binding on the Government.
The reason those referenda did not take place is that they were all overtaken by events; and if the Amendment were accepted tonight this referendum would be unnecessary, because it would be overtaken by events before we ever got into the Common Market.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Is all this not a completely bogus argument? Is it not a fact that a referendum is nothing to do with this country and nothing to do with the spirit of the government of this country? It is associated entirely with continental thinking.

Mr. Marten: My kindest reply to my hon. and learned Friend is, to quote his own jargon—res ipsa loquitur—and leave it at that.
I was saying that the referendum proposed in the Amendment would not be binding but would be purely consultative. My hon. and learned Friend should recognise that our constitution is a very flexible one. It may well be that we have reached the time in the development of our society when we should try to have a little drop of a referendum which is not binding, on a very important matter. There is no reason why we should not experiment a little with our constitution. After all, we must prepare to get into the Common Market. France has a referendum in its constitution, as have Luxembourg and Italy. Fifty per cent. of the Common Market countries have referenda in their constitutions. Why do we not try a little bit of it to get used to the practice of it? Our co-applicants—Norway, Denmark, and the Republic of Ireland—are all having referenda.
To those who say, as did the hon. Member of Fife, West when repeating what Mr. Attlee said, that these are devices for demagogues and dictators, I reply that, if that is so, surely we are getting mixed up with a very odd lot of characters.

Mr. David Walder: I am genuinely puzzled. My hon. Friend has talked about a consultative referendum. I do not see why he does not go the whole hog. It is all very well talking about experiments. A consultative referendum implies that a Government, perhaps at their peril, can reject or accept. Why does not my hon. Friend simply say that it must be binding?

Mr. Marten: I thought I had made this clear. The whole object of a consultative referendum is to help my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to test whether he has the full-hearted consent of the people; that is all. Then the judgment is up to my right hon. Friend as to whether he wants to go on in.
Coming back to my point that we are getting mixed up with a very odd lot of people if they are demagogues and dictators because they have referenda, I remind the House that the country which has the greatest number of referenda is Switzerland. If anybody can tell me where the dictator or demagogue is in Switzerland, I shall be glad to meet him when I am next over there ski-ing. Fourteen Commonwealth countries, all of whose parliamentary traditions have grown out of this country's, have referenda.
I must give credit now to one of the Gallery correspondents to whom I would give one of my two Oscars if I had them to award—Mr. Andrew Alexander—for having asked the question: which dictators have referenda? How many referenda have been held in Russia and China? Therefore, the argument that a referendum is for demagogues and dictators is just about as absurd as it is possible to be. It is rather like the argument that if we have a referendum on this issue we shall have one on hanging. That is nonsense. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] I am going on to explain why. Hon. Members must have patience. This is in a very special constitutional character. Hon. Members should know that. If they had been here all during the Committee stage they would have been aware of it, as I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend is.
The case against an advisory referendum is very weak. I believe, to quote Mr. David Wood of The Times, that the case against an advisory referendum is absolute humbug, particularly now that we are having one in Northern Ireland and that the Pearce Commission has been in Rhodesia to find whether the proposed changes are acceptable to the Rhodesian people as a whole.
Finally on the referendum question, I remind the House of Mr. Pompidou's remarks about the referendum which is to take place in France next Sunday. I quote from the communiqué issued by the French Embassy in London:
It is a new Europe that is coming into being, that is going to assert itself, and on which will depend the future of the European peoples and consequently of all French men and women in the political, economic, social and human fields.
And that is why I say…that the enlargement of the Community must be ratified by every Frenchwoman and Frenchman…


It would have been easy to use the parliamentary procedure. I am convinced that the Government would have obtained without any difficulty in both Assemblies a broad majority aware both of the importance of what is at stake and of the necessary solution…I consider that it is my duty and that it is fundamentally democratic to call upon the French, who elected me directly, to decide directly on this policy in favour of Europe.
Those are very democratic words. Unfortunately, President Pompidou is getting it mixed up with a rather party political campaign, but this is what happens in the Common Market countries. In independent Britain we have one great characteristic. I say this seriously, though perhaps I put it rather curiously. I refer to our ability to wear two hats. In other words, we have the ability to have a hard hitting General Election in which I attack, for instance, the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) and he attacks me.
However, if we were to isolate this issue, and if the Prime Minister were to give a statesmanlike lead and say "This is not a party political matter", as he has said already—let him repeat it—then I believe that the British people could take the issue out of politics and the Prime Minister could say that if the referendum went against the Government substantially the Government would not resign. That would take this issue out of party politics, as it should have been all the time.
Finally, what sort of referendum should we have? The answer is very clear, because the House has already decided what sort of referenda others should have. Therefore, we can take as read what we should have. In 1967, under the Labour Government, a Measure was passed called the West Indies Act, 1967. I sat through the proceedings on that Measure, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was also concerned with it. It was an Act to give associated status to a number of West Indian islands. That was semi-independence, and it was said that if they wanted to go fully independent certain things must happen. They had a lower House and an upper House and elections just like we have.
5.0 p.m.
The Schedule of the Act outlines the procedure for terminating the status of association and becoming fully independent. This Act, which went through

the House, was fully debated without any opposition on either side, with no votes on it, although everyone was entitled to vote, including all the pro-Marketeers The Act said:
In this Schedule 'referendum' means a referendum—
that is interesting. It did not mean a plebiscite then—
on which all persons who, at the time when the referendum is held, would be entitled to vote".
In other words, it attempts to go for the national referendum. The Schedule goes on:
Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule—
(a) there must be an interval of not less than 90 days between the introduction of the Bill…
(b) on the third reading of the Bill in the legislature, the Bill must be supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all the elected members of the legislature".
This would be quite a good thing for us to do because it would show whether the Government had the full-hearted support of Parliament or not.
(c) if approved on third reading in the legislature, the Bill must be submitted to a referendum and must not be submitted to the Governor of the state for his assent unless not less than two-thirds of the votes validly cast on that referendum are cast in support of the Bill".
That Act was passed with the full-hearted consent of this Parliament. No one objected, and it had all-party support. If we can do that for others, that is what we should do for ourselves. I would like to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy explain why we should not follow that pattern, because if it is good for them surely it is good for us. The question would be very simple: "Are you in favour or not in favour of joining the Common Market on the terms negotiated?" That is a clear, concise question, and I believe it will be to the great credit of the Government if they change their minds and decide to accept the Amendment. It will allow the Government to march to their confrontation with Europe knowing that the British people are right behind them, if they are.

Mr. George Thomson: I think the Committee will recognise that the reason why this is my maiden speech in the proceedings on this Bill is not any lack of inclination to speak in the earlier proceedings. Indeed, there were


many times when I would have wished to speak, and I would like to assure my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I have followed with intense interest, and an intense self-interest, the entire proceedings of the Committee stage so far. I have, I believe, voted in 21 of the 24 Divisions which have taken place, a record which, while not quite as good as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), I commend to my Whips, for whose tolerance I am unceasingly grateful. It is a great deal better than the record of many of my colleagues who are supposed to be a good deal more in opposition to the Bill than I have ever been.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Would my right hon. Friend accept that in all the Divisions in which he took part there was never any danger of defeating the Government, unlike the one we are debating today.

An Hon. Member: What about Second Reading?

Mr. Skinner: No, because the Liberals sold out.

Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referring to the way in which certain of my right hon. and hon. Friends voted on 17th November as having "sold out", thereby implying that we were motivated by the prospect of financial gain, and I would ask him to withdraw.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: Order. I am sure the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) intended it in a metaphorical sense, and that is what the Chair heard.

Mr. Thomson: I am sorry if what was intended as an innocent and mild remark should provoke my hon. Friend because I was hoping to go on to explain why I have taken the course of action I have on the Bill. I do not expect to carry him with me, but I expect him to accept the sincerity of my beliefs on this matter as I accept his. I mentioned my voting record to seek to convince him and my other hon. Friends that my decision to resign from the Shadow Cabinet was not taken lightly

but with the deepest of reluctance. I did my best to vote with my party so long as issues of principle, particularly new issues of principle, were not raised. Resigning, as I have found for the first time in my political life, is one of the most difficult acts of politics. One does, if one is conscientious, go to the limit as I believe I and my right hon. Friends have done, to avoid creating difficulties for one's party and one's colleagues with whom one agrees on so many other issues.
I hope the Committee will forgive me these personal remarks. While the resignation, when it finally comes, inevitably reflects wider differences of view, in this case general differences with the conduct of the Bill by my party and wider differences of view about my party's general conduct of affairs, the immediate cause of my resignation was the sudden and complete change of policy by my party in regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). Therefore, I wish to explain why I shall vote for the Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friends calling for a General Election, but shall find myself unable to join in support of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Banbury calling for a consultative referendum.
Very few words should be sufficient to deal with the General Election issue. I shall vote for a General Election for the simple and unsophisticated reason that, given the reactionary nature of the Government's domestic policies on jobs, prices, education and rents, it is impossible not to be in favour of a General Election. It will be seen from this that I support the proposition of a General Election from a rather different and more down-to-earth point of view than that urged in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore). He dressed up his advocacy of the Amendment extremely eloquently, as he always does, in constitutional clothes. He argued, in effect, that, however much one may detest Tory policies on rents or commercial broadcasting or whatever, the Government have a mandate for such things. On the other hand, he believes that the Common Market raises great constitutional issues of the surrender of parliamentary sovereignty, and that no Government have the right to take Britain


in without a fresh General Election mandate. He did not produce very persuasive historical evidence for this. It is true that in 1910 and 1911 there were General Elections over the question of the powers of the House of Lords. As far as I remember, these elections were called almost over the dead bodies of the Left of the day because they were demanded by the Monarch as the necessary condition before he would appoint the required number of peers to give the Government of the day their majority.

Mr. Michael English: Apart from the history of General Elections, would my right hon. Friend answer the question that his right hon. Friend failed to answer the other day. I asked him what he and his particularly close friends on this issue would do with regard to the Labour Party's policy about the Common Market if there were a General Election and what he would do afterwards if the Labour Party won?

Mr. Thomson: I do not know why my hon. Friend puts this question with such force. The answer is surely perfectly straightforward. If there were a General Election on this issue I would fight it in my constituency, explaining the policy of the Labour Party on this, which is that it is in favour of entry in principle but that it objects to the present terms. I would add my own view, which I have put again and again to my constituents, that the terms which have emerged seem acceptable to me. I would be in no different position in fighting that General Election than many of my other hon. Friends, for whom I have had the greatest personal regard, explaining to their constituents the official Labour Party policy and why they have conscientious differences of view from the majority.
I return to the main burden of the argument. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney made great play with the House of Lords question. He seems to have forgotten that he and I were members of a Cabinet which introduced into the House—we were, unfortunately, not able to carry it to final success—a major reform of the House of Lords which would have turned it virtually into a salaried senate. I have looked at our election manifesto for 1966, and I am bound to say that I find this matter described somewhat inadequately. Yet we

had no doubt that we would carry through that major constitutional change, if we gained the consent of the House of Commons, without any question of a General Election.
I believe, with respect, that it would have been wiser for my party to stick to the view that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition expressed in a Panorama interview, not last night but on 8th May, 1967. He was being asked about the then Labour Government's commitment to negotiate entry, and he said:
We have a mandate to go in, because we sought it last time.
"Last time" was the General Election of 1966.
We had a mandate. We said we would go in if essential Commonwealth and British interests could be safeguarded and that is the basis on which we are now applying.
Well, if we had a mandate on the basis of the 1966 election manifesto, which I have here for anyone who wishes to have it quoted, then if we had remained in power in 1970 we would certainly have claimed we had a much more clear-cut mandate for going into the Communities without a General Election, if the Labour Government of that day had brought back terms of entry which they thought were acceptable and which they felt they could commend to the House. I think that every right hon. and hon. Member on this side will recognise the truth of that. Therefore, I submit that the constitutional argument is one more example of the kind of inconsistency we get ourselves into on this issue through getting our political priorities a little wrong.
I have a very old respect for the hon. Member for Banbury who raised the question of what people did in the last General Election and what sort of choice there was. Perhaps I may add a personal parenthesis, since confession seems to be the order of the day. I was the only candidate in East Dundee who was in favour of Britain's entering the Common Market. I had against me a Conservative candidate and a Scottish National Party candidate, both of whom were against the Common Market. I was elected by a majority of people who were certainly in no doubt about whom they were electing and what he stood for.
I have said that I believe that if the Labour Government had come to power


in 1970 and the Cabinet of the day had felt the terms were right there would not have been any feeling that there was a constitutional requirement for a General Election. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the present Bill may be briefer and a great deal more brutal than the Bill we would have introduced, but a Labour Government would have faced a much more relaxed parliamentary situation, in which they would have had a majority of the Opposition with them, which would have made the legislative process a good deal easier.
But the point is that we knew perfectly well what degree of sovereignty we were surrendering when we accepted the invitation to open negotiations in May,1970. Therefore, the case for a General Election is not constitutional but a straight forward party political one, and none the worse for that. We want to get the Tories out, because we detest their domestic policies. I will vote for a General Election tonight for the simple reason that there is a rate of about 12 per cent. male unemployment in my constituency, and a Labour Government would tackle that problem a great deal more effectively than the present Government. But I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends not to disguise the General Election argument with a lot of pretentious constitutional nonsense about Simon de Montfort and all the rest. He was, I suppose, one of the early Community men. He was born in France and then came across to England. I do not think this sort of thing carries conviction; it is the sort of thing that gets politics and politicians a bad name.
When we come to a General Election the Common Market will be a small part of it. It will be fought on jobs, pensions, prices, and all the things that General Elections are always fought on—

Mr. Skinner: And the Common Market.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Thomson: I said that the Common Market will be a small part of it, but the main part will be the domestic issues.
A General Election can be forced by an Opposition under our parliamentary system in only one of two ways—by winning sufficient by-elections or by such a

genuine shift of conviction within the House of Commons that the Government's majority disappears. The Common Market does not fit that second case. There was a House of Commons majority of 112 in October for entering the Common Market on the present terms, and it would have been even bigger if there had been a free vote on both sides. The majority for the principle of entry on the present terms has not grown less since. That remains the reality.
I recognise—I say this without irony—that this creates great frustrations for my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney, who has his own deeply held convictions about the matter, which are certainly as deep and sincere as those I hold. They are probably about an equal distance from the official position of the party which he speaks for. The official position remains, as has been repeated a number of times by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in the past few days, as being in principle in favour of British entry into the Common Market but against the economic terms that were negotiated by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. John Mendelson: Why is my right hon. Friend trying to isolate my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore)? Should he not address himself to the official decision of the annual conference of the Labour Party, by a majority of five to one, that we are to force a General Election on the terms negotiated by the Tory Government, and the sooner the better? Does not my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) have to justify his own departure from the policy of the Labour Party?

Mr. Thomson: I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) has been following my argument with his customary attention. I shall be happy to join him in the Lobby tonight on the General Election issue. I am simply trying to clarify why I shall be there with him. I was not trying to isolate my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney. I referred to him because he opened the debate, but what I said about him refers with equal force to myhon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale


(Mr. Michael Foot), who will no doubt wind up this discussion.
I wanted to go on to say that I fully recognise that they speak for the majority of my party, and that, while minorities have rights—and my right hon. and hon. Friends have been punctilious about recognising those rights—majorities are entitled to have their way. But in a matter like the Common Market, a unique issue which deeply divides all the parties in the House, above all an issue for the next generation rather than simply for the next General Election, the majority that matters is the majority of the House of Commons as a whole, after earnest and agonising debate over many days. That majority can be altered only if the Labour minority in this discussion tear up their principles while the Tory minority stick to theirs. When it is put in that way, I do not think my right hon. and hon. Friends would either expect or want their colleagues who hold different views from theirs to behave in that way.
That brings me to the referendum Amendment. As the Committee knows, I resigned from the Shadow Cabinet together with other colleagues because I could not accept collective responsibility for recommending to my party that we should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Banbury. As a mem- of the previous Labour Government, I was, I think, more on record than almost any of my colleagues in putting the case against a referendum.
The referendum was passed particularly strongly in Scotland, where the Scottish National Party wanted to use it both to keep Scotland out of the Common Market and to get Scotland out of the United Kingdom. The views I put then still seem to me to be valid. I am not a stickler for consistency. One should be ready to learn from new facts and new experiences. But I have seen nothing which impels me to change my views about referenda. I believe that the case against a referendum is formidable, both on constitutional grounds of undermining parliamentary democracy, and on political grounds, which are of particular interest to this side of the House because they arrest social and economic progress.
The currently fashionable term of abuse for this position is "elitist". It is

not a justified description. I am against a referendum not because I believe that the men in Whitehall or Westminster know best. Parliament and Whitehall are imperfect institutions. I am against a referendum because I am a democrat who believes that, on balance, the elected Commons remains the best protector of the individual liberty of the subject, and that, although the House of Commons is imperfect, it is also the most sensitive political seismograph for registering complicated questions of public interest.
Moreover, I believe that a referendum would divide both parties, and particularly a party like the Labour Party, which is at present in Opposition, because it could not take place without compelling many members on both sides of the argument—both pro- and anti-Marketeers—to campaign against the views of their own constituency parties, and, indeed, would be bound to result in leaders in the parties campaigning against each other.

Mr. John Mendelson: The problem would be the same in a General Election.

Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone say "Settle it in a General Election". I have already explained that I am voting with him tonight for a General Election.

Mr. Mendelson: My right hon. Friend misheard me. I did not say "settle it in a General Election". I said the problem would be the same in a General Election. My right hon. Friend says that he accepts the terms as satisfactory. The Labour Party say that it does not accept the terms as satisfactory.

Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend is wrong. It would not be the same in a General Election. In a General Election, one would not have the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party campaigning against each other on television; one would not have the Labour candidate for Dundee, East campaigning against his constituency Labour Party. That is a recipe for disaster and division in the party.
I fully accept that there is a problem these days about people wanting the fullest participation in political decision making. "Direct democracy" is a very fashionable term at the moment. I am all in favour of the principle of decisions


being taken at the lowest effective level. But let us not go in for romantic self-deception about participation. We could start by persuading people to take greater part in local elections instead of in the small numbers in which they vote at present. The fact is that "direct democracy" in the factory, in the university or ultimately in the street can often give power to unrepresentative local leaders who, when they have to submit themselves to democratic election, lose their deposits.
A referendum has been the favoured instrument of tyranny and dictatorship. It is no accident that it is written into the constitutions of many countries——

Mrs. Renée Short: Including Denmark.

Mr. Thomson: I shall deal with this point if my hon. Friend will have patience. I agree that the referendum is also used by decent democracies in various part of the world. But there it has invariably been a brake on progress. The experience of Mr. Chifley's Government in Australia should interest my hon. Friends. The referendum in Australia after the war was used as a major obstacle to nationalisation and radical economic change. There, only four out of 24 have been carried. The last to be carried was nearly20 years ago. Does anyone seriously believe that Labour Governments here could have carried through their nationalisation programmes or their controversial social reforms if they had had to submit them to referenda? Despite what the hon. Member for Banbury attempted to show, does anyone seriously believe that if we allowed a referendum on such a major issue as the Common Market we could prevent its use on other issues?

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: Why is it, then, that every measure of social progress made in Switzerland in the last 20 years has been made as a result of a referendum, including the granting of votes to women?

Mr. Thomson: I think I must take my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) with me next time I go to Switzerland. He will find that the referendum there has been an obstacle to social progress. It has taken several generations to persuade the men of

Switzerland through the referendum instrument to concede votes for women. When I visited there as a member of the Labour Government in connection with the Common Market, I found that a widespread view in Switzerland was that it would be much in Switzerland's economic interest to be part of a wider economic community but that there was no hope of carrying it through the referendum hoops. The fact is that those democracies that have it find that the referendum is a brake on progress.
Only three weeks ago the Opposition rejected the idea of a referendum as a carefully considered act of policy. The justification for changing that view lies in two events—President Pompidou's decision in France to hold a referendum on Britain's application to join the Common Market, and the Prime Minister's decision to have a plebiscite in Ulster. President Pompidou's decision seems to me to be the worst of all reasons for the Labour Party changing its policy, since his main political motive is to defeat and divide the French Left. The Prime Minister's plebiscite in Ulster is, I believe, a massive mistake which he will regret. In overcoming ancient fears and prejudices, whether they be about the border in Ireland or about the merging of Britain in a wider European community, there is a moment when elected representatives have to be bold and give a lead to public opinion. I believe that the Prime Minister's Ulster plebiscite will one day hang like a millstone round the necks of Ulster leaders wishing to turn their backs on the past.
Neither President Pompidou nor the Prime Minister should be regarded as persuasive advocates for a change of policy by the Labour Party. I respect the sincerity of the hon. Member for Banbury and his supporters, but they have put down this Amendment for wholly conservative reasons which ought to be completely alien to this side of the House. He mentioned that six out of nine Conservative Prime Ministers had toyed with the idea of a referendum but that none had introduced it. Of course, it was precisely because they were Conservative Prime Ministers that they thought of a referendum; they wanted to use it as a weapon of last resort against social advance. It is significant that the only Labour Prime Minister faced directly


with the issue until now—Earl Attlee—gave a particularly pungent reply to the suggestion of a referendum.
I believe that we yield to the temptation of short-term political advantage by making an alliance with the hon. Member for Banbury and his right hon. and hon. Friends which will be damaging to our own credibility. It is a logical non-sequitur to argue for a referendum as second best to a General Election. A referendum would give the Labour Party the worst of all worlds. If the Amendment were carried, it would embarrass the Government, which would be a good thing, but it would not bring the Government down and cause a General Election. It would not even keep Britain out of the Common Market, since it is likely that by the time the referendum was held the answer would be "Yes".

Mr. Orme: Why oppose a referendum then?

Mr. Thomson: I at least hoped to retain the respect of my hon. Friend in opposing something on principle which might be of political advantage to me. If the Amendment were carried, it would not mean a General Election. The last opinion polls I saw showed 45 per cent. approving entry and 39 per cent. disapproving. The age breakdown was interesting. In the age group 25 to 44, those in favour totalled 54 per cent., with 33 per cent. against. In the age group 65 and over, 51 per cent. were against and only 25 per cent. were for. That may be a posture that is agreeable to the hon. Member and his hon. Friends but it ought not to be a posture in any way congenial to any party such as the Labour Party. We are a radical party, a party of change. We stand for something utterly different from that represented by those who move this Amendment.

Mr. Marten: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which opinion poll this was and what were the questions?

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Thomson: The poll was carried out by Social and Community Planning Research. The questions were:
Whether you approved greatly or less greatly, whether you disapproved greatly or less greatly.

I have lumped the two categories for the purposes of simplicity. I would be happy to give the hon. Member full details. The hon. Member has behind him the poll in the Sunday Express, the National Opinion Poll, I think, which showed that 78 per cent. of people, when asked, said that they wanted a referendum. Of course if a person is asked a leading question about whether he wants to be consulted he says "Yes". He would say exactly the same if he were asked whether he wanted to be consulted about nationalisation, capital punishment, or sending immigrants back to their countries of origin.
I have a report here of a survey carried out by the Social and Community Planning Research Organisation which was done for The Guardian by two social researchers called Roger Jowell and Gerald Hoinville. They refer to the question asked in the recent Sunday Express poll, which was:
Before taking their final decision about joining the Common Market, Norway, Denmark and Ireland will each have a referendum in which all the people will be able to say whether they want to join or not. Do you think that Britain should do the same?
The social researchers make the not unreasonable comment that if any question were designed to illustrate the well-known bandwagon effect this was a perfect example. They say:
A comparable leading question might well have been:
'When France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Holland decided to form the Common Market, they each left the decision entirely to their Parliaments. Do you think Britain should do the same?
That question was very likely to have elicited an overwhelming "Yes". It is just as leading and unfair a question as the earlier one——

Mr. William Hamilton: Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West) rose——

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Sir D. Walker-Smith rose—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: Order. To which hon. Gentleman was the right hon. Gentleman giving way?

Mr. Thomson: To my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hamilton: My right hon. Friend was giving way to the most distinguished Member for Fife, West. Does he recall


that an earlier National Opinion Poll asked whether people knew what a referendum was and 55 per cent. of them said "No"?

Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend is basically right, but he engages in his well-known characteristic of understatement. The actual figures were that 58 per cent. did not know and 10 per cent. gave the wrong answer. My impression, leaving aside the opinion polls and sticking to the hunch of a simple politician, is that most people emerged from the great debate last autumn feeling that this was precisely the kind of complex and confusing issue, on involved questions concerning not only the economy but foreign policy and constitutional matters, which they had elected politicians to deal with.
The general public are bored with our wrangling here. They want the politicians to get on with it. I believe that they will judge us by the results, and if the results turn out to be harmful then they will demand changes in the terms that we negotiate. That attitude fits in extraordinarily well, both with the official views of the Labour Party on this side of the Committee and with its political needs, if I may put it that way. We are in favour of the principle of entry but object to the terms. It would be more appropriate for the Labour Party to face the future instead of continually joining with the hon. Member for Banbury the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton), the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell)——

Mr. Orme: Whom did you join?

Mr. Thomson: I am sorry my hon. Friend does not like to hear my views. I have been patient and listened to those of my hon. Friends. We should not join with these people in looking nostalgically over our shoulders to a view of the past with which we have little in common. It was for these reasons that I felt bound to come here and say what I have said, and it is for these reasons that I shall join my hon. and right hon. Friends on the General Election Amendment but shall be utterly unable to support them on the matter of the referendum.

Mr. Rippon: I am sure that the whole Committee has listened with great attention and appreciation to the speech of

the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson). All of us, whatever our views, accept the sincerity of his convictions, his beliefs and his actions. It is not for me to intervene in any way in the differences of opinion which exist on the other side of the Committee. We watched the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) speaking up for the views of the party conference and insisting upon conformity.

Mr. John Mendelson: Mr. John Mendelson indicated assent.

Mr. Rippon: I am happy to see that the hon. Member nods. I am sure that he will follow the example of his right hon. Friend tonight and vote for the General Election Amendment for the reasons for which Oppositions always vote for that and will vote against the referendum Amendment in accordance with the decision of the Labour Party conference in October, 1971. Then a resolution put forward by the Union of Post Office Workers demanding a campaign for a referendum if the Government refused a General Election on the European Economic Community issue was defeated by 4,161,000 votes to 1,928,000, a majority of 2,233,000. I am sure the hon. Member will as usual follow what his party conference says. It was the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) who said that it was the custom of his party to follow its party conference views. That is certainly right when such views are wise.

Mr. William Hamilton: My right hon. Friend the present Chairman of the Labour Party said at the Scottish Labour Party conference at Inverness that conference was instinctively right when perhaps Cabinets were wrong.

Mr. Rippon: Hon. Members must form their own judgments on how they are bound by party conferences. The hon. Member said that he had done so, and we shall look forward to seeing him with us tonight.
Judging by the speech of the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), this may go down as one of the most curious debates in the annals of parliamentary history. How he could ever have remained a member of the Cabinet which made the application passes all understanding. I must assume, whatever the Labour Cabinet may have said in the end about the terms, that it made its application in


good faith. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman was not acting in good faith if he believed then what he states today. He pays great attention to The Times, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). My hon. Friend was a little unfair to the Political Correspondent of The Times when he said he suggested that it was humbug to be against the referendum. He said it was humbug to be for it, and that is quite different. Perhaps we should follow another piece of advice from the Political Correspondent of The Times, who said that we should be wise to ignore the sadness of it and look for the laughs.
I think everyone in the House knows that this is to a large extent a totally unreal debate. Oppositions from time to time are inclined to call for an immediate General Election. The right hon. Member for Dundee, East said that he would support that idea because he imagined a General Election would be on straight political lines and he would like the opportunity to change the Government. That is a traditional sentiment. It is a little unusual for the demand for a General Election to come as an Amendment to Clause 1 of a Bill which has already been accepted in principle by the House of Commons.
As for the sudden enthusiasm of some right hon. and hon. Members for a referendum, nobody, either inside or outside the House, believes that this enthusiasm arises from any deep or abiding conviction of the merits of such a constitutional innovation.
The two suggested Amendments have certain features in common and certain features that are distinct to each. The feature in common is that both would require a nation-wide consultation and vote of the electorate and then a further vote by both Houses of Parliament before the Act came into force. This would presumably be after the Royal Assent, since the Amendments talk of the Act coming into force. In both cases, if the Amendment were accepted we should be following the extraordinary course of approving the Bill in Parliament and securing the Royal Assent, but returning to the electorate to seek their views and then coming back to Parliament for a further vote.
The Amendment calling for a General Election suggests first and foremost that the House of Commons can have no confidence in its own election by the people or in its ability to pass judgment on the Bill, and that the decision should be left to a new Parliament after a General Election. That view is taken despite all the consultations and debates that have been held in the country and in Parliament on the issue of Community membership over all these many years, the decisions of previous Parliaments and, above all, the decisions of this Parliament on 28th October last year and on Second Reading of the Bill in February.
In effect, the official Opposition Amendment is proposing that this Government and this Parliament, having surmounted all the hurdles which have balked previous Governments and Parliaments on this great national course towards furthering our national security and prosperity, should now evade the final responsibility for the decision. If there were to be a General Election on this odd basis, we could all take it for granted that other issues, national and local, would be raised.
As the right hon. Member for Dundee, East said, that would be the sole purpose of such a General Election, but it might be a strange campaign. One can perhaps envisage a mass meeting in which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) would join my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in saying that we should not enter Europe on any terms. At half-time I suppose they would go to opposite ends of the hall and proclaim their divergent views on immigration, nationalisation, industrial relations and inflation. It could not possibly be a straight issue between the two political parties if right hon. and hon. Members were to hold to their convictions.

Mr. John Mendelson: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes his information about the position of the Labour Party from my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East, let him look up the record. He will find that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), in winding up the debate before the vote was taken, said that the Labour Party had decided to put its opposition to the


terms negotiated by the Conservative Government to the electorate whenever a General Election came. That is our policy.

Mr. Rippon: The policy is to have a General Election for the reasons explained by the right hon. Member for Dundee, East.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury suggested that a clear, simple issue could be put to the electorate in a referendum and that each party could take a clear line for or against. He suggested that the proposition should be "Are you for or against entry on the terms negotiated?" But that is not enough to get the views of the British people. The Labour Party would split three ways on this—and perhaps some of my right hon. and hon. Friends as well. There would be those who were for entry on the terms negotiated, those who were for entry after renegotiation and those who were against entry on any terms. We should have to put all these matters in detail asking "Which terms are you against?", "which terms are you for?", "Which terms do you want renegotiated?" We should have to make available copies of the Act, which by then we shall have passed, or the Treaty of Accession, to which Amendment No. 205 refers. It would be a rather difficult referendum to conduct.

Mr. Marten: With respect, I think my right hon. and learned Friend is exaggerating. The straight question could be put in an opinion poll: "Do you want to join the Common Market or not?" That is all we want to know.

Mr. Rippon: It cannot be as simple as that, because some people want to join on the terms negotiated, some want renegotiation and some do not want to join at all. It cannot be a simple "Yes" or "No" question. That is the difficulty of putting a complex issue to the public in a referendum. A change of régime or a simple issue of whether or not to have Sunday opening in part of Wales can be, and has been, the subject of a referendum in this country, but it is not easy.

Mr. Paget: If we can put the question to the House of Commons, why cannot we put it to the people?

Mr. Rippon: We had some difficulty in putting it to the House of Commons. Having regard to the length and complexity of our debates over the last 10 years, there are difficulties in having those debates repeated over the next 10 years to get a satisfactory solution.
It is true to say that a referendum would not mean suspending our national affairs and embroiling the country quite to the extent of a General Election, but it would mean nation-wide campaigns on matters of great complexity. The Act and the Treaty of Accession, or popular versions of them, would have to be distributed. It would not be an easy referendum to conduct and the framing of suitably explicit questions would be difficult.
Since the concept is novel and alien in this country, the first mammoth task would be to explain the purpose and nature of a referendum, as the right hon. Member for Dundee, East said. The one question that was not published in the Daily Express in its opinion poll was the one which asked "Do you know what a referendum is?" It was clear that about 68 per cent. of those questioned had no idea.

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman apply his arguments to the plebiscite in Northern Ireland where, first, the explanation has to be given; secondly, the fact that those in Ireland take many different views about the nature of the relationships that might develop with Dublin; and thirdly, the fact that the Government have provided for periodic plebiscites? Will he explain exactly why there should be a basic difference in the handling of the Northern Irish question and the Common Market question?

Mr. Rippon: I was going on to say more about the practical difficulties in handling a referendum, but I do not want to make too much of it. At Question Time both the Prime Minister and I have indicated that whatever dictionary definition one prefers, whether that of the Oxford Dictionary or that which was given in the Economist, what really matters are the circumstances and not the words. The real difference in circumstances both in the case of Northern Ireland and that of


Gibraltar is that there was not quite the same accepted parliamentary process available to determine the issue.
Perhaps I cannot explain these matters as well as the Leader of the Opposition used to explain them. On 28th May, 1970, just before the General Election, the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the question of a referendum as follows:
Robin Day: Turning to another matter completely, Mr. Wilson, the people of Gibraltar were allowed to say whether they wished to join Spain through the medium of a referendum. Why cannot the people of Britain be allowed a similar opportunity to say whether they wish to join the Common Market?
Harold Wilson: It was necessary to take the referendum in Gibraltar…This referendum was necessary to prove to the world that all the Gibraltarians, bar about 40, wanted to remain with the British connection. As far as the Common Market is concerned, that's a very different thing, we have a Parliament in the sense that Gibraltar hasn't, we have M.P.s who are elected, as some are going to be elected next month, and I think it is right that it is the Parliament which should take that decision with a sense of full responsibility, with a sense that reflects national views and interests.
Then another interviewer, Michael Charlton, took up the issue:
Mr. Laverty from Birkenhead says 'Is it correct to assume that if Mr. Wilson sees the polls are going against him, he'll say at the last minute that he will allow a referendum on the Common Market?'
Harold Wilson: The answer to that is no. I've given my answer many times. I don't change because polls go either up or down. Heavens, when the polls have been 28 points against me it hasn't made any difference with going on with policies I knew to be unpopular. I'm not going to trim to win votes on a question like that.…I shall not change my attitude on that.
That sums up what has been the general view on both sides of the House for a long time.
I do not see that our way of reaching a decision on the question of a referendum should be influenced by the practices of certain other applicants or existing members. The Treaty of Accession provides that each country should ratify
in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House on 21st March,
Other countries have their own constitutional procedures; we have ours."—[Official Report, 21st March, 1972; Vol. 833, c. 319.]

Referenda are a feature of some constitutions but not of others.
It is rather extraordinary that those who are now pressing in this country for a referendum pray in aid the practice of the French Government and the French constitution. The fact that we can ratify in our own way underlines the fact that we retain our own constitutional position and our own constitutional rights. Therefore, the question posed as to what would happen if the Council of Ministers decided we should have direct elections is the sort of matter which we should decide in accordance with our own procedures and views.
Where referenda exist in other countries, the circumstances in which they may be used differ considerably. The constitution of Italy, for example, provides that there should be no referendum in the case of the ratification of a treaty. I do not want to go into all the details about how other countries conduct their affairs because they will ratify in their own way. But anybody who imagines that in all cases the simple motive for holding a referendum is to ascertain the popular will on a single issue is an innocent abroad. The right hon. Member for Dundee, East made some observations on the objectives of the President of France, and that is not for me to comment upon. What other countries may do in this regard has to be seen in the context of the totality of their constitutional arrangements and history.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said that the President of France had expressed the view that because he was directly elected he could go over the heads of the French Parliament to the people. We do not have a directly elected head of state.

Mr. Marten: I am praying in aid in this Amendment the case of Norway which does not have in its constitution provision for referenda. The Norwegians are having a consultative referendum of the type for which I am asking. I speak as one who a long time before the General Election pressed for a referendum on this issue, and therefore it is no new thing for me. Therefore, I wish that my right hon. and learned Friend would connect


me with the Norwegian type of arrangement rather than with what happens in France and elsewhere.

Mr. Rippon: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has been much more consistent than have some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen whose views, for various reasons, change rather more rapidly.
Each country within the Community is entitled to have its own constitutional procedures. The Norwegians and the Danes have theirs and they have developed the mover many years. They understand them and they like them. In the case of Norway it is only a consultative referendum; some others are more binding.
We do not have to have regard to these matters. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Stepney is always saying, we retain our national identity and our own constitutional practices and procedures. Of course, we may change. It may be there are some right hon. and hon. Members who think we ought to import the referendum into the British constitution. I would only say that it would be naive for any right hon. Member to think that the purpose of support being given to the concept of a referendum at this moment is in any way due to a belief in the inherent merits of that particular constitutional practice.

Mr. Shore: It is true that the British constitution is not written and that we depend heavily on practice and convention, but surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that in so far as one can quote any kind of precedent in what is involved in membership of the Common Market, it is right to say that this is an overriding constitutional issue. When we have faced such matters in the past and the two sides of the House have been divided, Government have thought it right and honourable to look for a solution in a General Election. Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not do this now?

Mr. Rippon: Often when we were in opposition the two sides were equally divided about the Government's policies, on some of which the then Government had not sought a very clear mandate. When in Opposition we occasionally demanded a General Election, as an Opposition is entitled to do. I was discussing

the question of a referendum, and our constitution is flexible enough for the House to decide, if it wishes, to import the doctrine of the referendum. All I am saying is that it has never been imported before. It is a system that is alien to us
I agree that from time to time the idea has been wheeled out—normally as the right hon. Member for Dundee, East said, by Opposition leaders—and then speedily dropped. I will not comment too much on the fact that it is a weapon of conservatism. No doubt many examples can be given of reforms which would not have been passed in this House if a referendum had been required.
One of the essential features of our parliamentary democracy in Britain is the concept of the Government being responsible to a representative Parliament elected freely and directly by the people and taking its decisions on behalf of the people.
6.0 p.m.
This principle has earned Britain respect throughout the world.

[SirALFRED BROUGHTONin the Chair]

Of all the momentous decisions taken by Governments of different political shades through the centuries none has been taken on the basis of popular referendum. Such a referendum would add nothing to the understanding of the issues involved which we have been discussing in this House for many years, but certainly it would weaken public confidence in the ability and authority of its elected representatives.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was good enough to send me at my request a copy of a speech that he made at the Tamworth College of Further Education on Monday, 15th June, 1970, in the course of which he said:
I say at once that I am no supporter of a referendum, least of all on this sort of subject. Out of many reasons I mention only two. First, it is inconsistent with the responsibility of government to parliament and to the electorate. If, on a subject of this importance, the Government were to propose one course and a referendum chose the other, then, unless the Government promptly resigned they would be able thereafter to say, whatever happened: 'Well, don't blame us, it is no fault of ours; we wanted to do one thing,


but you decided to do the other; so, ladies and gentlemen, you have only yourselves to blame.' The result of that would be, quite literally, irresponsible government.
I think that my right hon. Friend was right in that denunciation.

I know that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have put down the Amendment have found some new supporters because they advocate only an advisory and not a binding referendum. Then they argue that the rôle of Parliament would be unaffected. In other words, they say that it is possible to have one's cake and to eat it. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition is on record even against an advisory referendum. As he said on 8th July, 1971,
The Prime Minister said that I oppose a referendum, and I agree—I have always done so, as he has. The idea of an advisory referendum was not then put forward, but I still agree with the right hon. Gentleman on this question."—[Official Report, 8th July, 1971; Vol. 820, c. 1515.]

It is an illusion to think that an advisory referendum avoids the difficulties in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury suggested. Whatever it is called, a referendum held on an issue of major policy on which the Government's position at any rate is clear could scarcely be other than a vote of confidence in the Government.

Suppose that the result were negative. Could the Government realistically carry on either with the Measure in question or with their programme? As a former Home Secretary, the then Mr. Winston Churchill, said in 1911,
'After the Government had made a proposal of extreme magnitude and importance to which they had pledged their faith and their conviction, then when this proposal has been rejected, they are, we are told, to continue to administer the affairs of the country on an entirely different basis, and with an opposite purpose and opposite methods to those which they had been hoping and believing it would be right and proper for them to fulfil. Politics may be an humble profession, but I am glad to say it is not quite so humble in this country as yet."—[Official Report, 8th May, 1911; Vol. XXV, c. 929.]
Certainly it is our view that the responsibilities of Parliament and of Members of Parliament would be weakened by any form of national referendum of the kind that is proposed, whether it was binding or advisory in character.

Mr. James Sillars: Can the right hon. and learned Gentle-

man assure the Committee that if we enter the Common Market and develop Community institutions of a common nature, a Conservative Government will always resist the entry into the British political system of referenda, advisory or otherwise?

Mr. Rippon: One Government cannot bind their successors. Certainly the present Government would resist such a proposal. If that proposition were to come forward and if it were to be accepted by a Labour Government, it would mean a total reversal of the proclaimed policies of the Labour Party as well as of the Conservative and Liberal Parties.
What the Leader of the Opposition has said on this subject, both in office and out of office, is all on the record. I think that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) can be sure that, once in government, his party would drop entirely the concept of the referendum, because it is contrary to the traditions of our country.
It is rather sad to see the way in which so many right hon. and hon. Members opposite are simply standing on their heads over this matter. The acrobatics do not impress the House of Commons very much. Certainly they appal people in the country at large and do us all grave harm.
The right hon. Member for Stepney made the point that we should have a General Election or a referendum first because the Government had no mandate for taking the country into the Communities. He said that we had not taken into account the views of people and Parliament as fully as we said we would. Then he said that the issue was unique and that it called for unique measures of consultation of the people, even at this stage.
There is no doctrine of a so-called specific mandate. The constitutional requirement for a General Election springs from the Parliament Act's provision that the length of a Parliament shall not exceed five years. Subject to that, it is the privilege of the Prime Minister to seek a Dissolution at the time he judges appropriate.
In this case, it can be claimed that there is and always has been a mandate. My right hon. Friend the Member for


Banbury read out in full the terms of the Conservative Party's election manifesto. What is more, the right hon. Member for Dundee, East referred to the attitude of the Labour Government. There is a clear mandate on this issue, and no one can doubt it.
We have always made it clear that if we considered the terms fair, a Conservative Government would recommend them to Parliament. As the Leader of the Liberal Party has reminded us before, there was no one—not only party leaders but anyone who is at present a Member of the House of Commons—who argued that if this issue came before Parliament it would have to be put to the country in a General Election.

Mr. Buchan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of the existence of a mandate. Did he and his party ever request a mandate on this issue? Their request was solely for the right to negotiate.

Mr. Rippon: Perhaps it is well that should be said once again, though I will do no more than ask the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) now to read the full text of the Conservative Party's election manifesto, but not to do so today as we have already had it twice, as he would have known had he been here.
I turn to the second contention, which is that the people and Parliament were not adequately consulted in the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s. Quite apart from the debates in this House and the White Papers, we agreed a procedure in July of last year, which was warmly welcomed by the Leader of the Opposition, as to how we should deal with this matter. We decided to avoid taking a decision in principle in July, so that we could consult our constituents, make speeches and come back to take the decisive vote in October. That is what we have done. It is absurd now to suggest that no great debate has taken place and that hon. Members have had no opportunity on which to base their decision on whether or not we should join the Community.

Mr. Michael Foot: It is not the case of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that there was no debate. There was a great debate. There was a

great debate in the Labour Party which ended in a five-to-one majority against entry on these terms. All we ask is that the country should have the same right to reach a verdict.

Mr. Rippon: Before the General Election, both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition made it clear time and time again that the decision would have to be taken by Members of Parliament weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of entry in the light of terms negotiated. That was abundantly clear then, as it is abundantly clear now. Our constitutional process is carried out through Parliament. It always has been. That was always the Conservative Party's intention, as it was the Labour Party's intention when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that they would would win the General Election. No amount of quotation or misquotation can change that.
As to the fact that it is a unique case, we have treated the whole discussion of this matter as a unique case both inside and outside Parliament by reference to the amount of time that we have devoted to every conceivable sort of discussion. We have to come back time and again to the fact that on 28th October, in accordance with the traditional procedures and the programme outlined by the Prime Minister on 17th June, 1971,welcomed by the Leader of the Opposition and everyone else, we took our historic decision of principle which found favour by the decisive majority of 112. As the right hon. Member for Dundee, East said, if it had been a free vote it would have been an even more decisive majority. If the minority have rights in this House, so have the majority. There is a majority for this policy and the Bill. While it is right that we should discuss the details of the proposals in the Measure, it is wrong that time and again the Opposition should seek to challenge the fundamental principle of the Bill.

Mr. Shore: It is time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman put this point more accurately. On 28th October the House voted on a 30-odd page While Paper before the negotiations were even completed. The House, and certainly the nation, has never seriously considered the two volumes of the Treaties of


Accession which he did not have the guts to publish until the middle of January this year.

Mr. Rippon: That shows the depths to which the Opposition are prepared to sink. The right hon. Member for Stepney knows that we agreed the procedures by which this matter would be handled. All he objects to is the way that the vote went.
I do not believe that many people would seriously contest that the majority of people in this country now feel the decision on Community membership has been clearly and definitely taken by Parliament in our traditional way. I believe that most people in this country want us now to do our proper job, which is to get on with the enabling legislation, to ratify the Treaty, and to become a full member of the Community on 1st January next year.

Mr. Douglas Jay: When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that this was an unreal debate, he showed how little he understands the issues which are at stake. It seems to me a very real debate on a very real issue. He also showed how little he understands the issues when he said that if we had a referendum on this particular matter, we should therefore need to have referenda on all sorts of other issues as well. The genuine case for a referendum exists where, and only where, a major constitutional change is at stake and the decision is intended to be irrevocable, particularly where the rights of the electorate are being curtailed.
The weakness of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) was that he almost totally ignored what is contained in the Bill. We now know that it proposes to hand over future power to make laws and raise taxes enforceable with the authority of the courts of this country to authorities outside the United Kingdom. Indeed, it proposes to hand them over not just to the EEC Council of Ministers, on which one can argue that the British Government are represented in a small minority, but to the official Commission, which is not elected, which is not genuinely responsible to anyone and on which this country would have no national representatives. That is a

sweeping curtailment not just of the rights of the House of Commons but of the rights of the electorate. Whether one is in favour of that or not, that is what is involved in the Bill. To be prepared to accept all that and to object to a referendum because it is un-British seems to be humbug, whatever else may or may not be humbug in this controversy.
The Bill involves more than that. Almost certainly the EEC is now moving—this is not in dispute—towards a directly elected Parliament and a common currency, apparently with the approval of the Prime Minister. However, a directly elected Parliament and a common currency mean, unless they are a sham, not merely a customs union but a common government. That is political federation and the extinction of a substantial measure of national independence.
6.15 p.m.
The issue before us is therefore not just a major loss of sovereignty, but what is usually called self-determination—to what sort of country does one wish to belong—for which a plebiscite has always been considered a necessity in most democratic countries. It was for precisely this reason that our own Parliament agreed to take such a course with Gibraltar, Northern Ireland and other territories.
To surrender legislative power and commit the country to a loss not only of sovereignty but of independence cannot justifiably be carried out by Parliament alone without the full-hearted consent of the people. That is why Norway, Denmark and Ireland, not dictatorial but as democratic countries as one can find, are to hold referenda. That is why in almost all modern democracies with written constitutions no major constitutional change can be made by Parliament alone. In the United States the constitution cannot be changed without a special majority in both the Senate and the States. We have maintained the same tradition and spirit not in a written constitution but by the tacit moral agreement which lies at the heart of our system. It is that which the Prime Minister and the Government are now in danger of undermining.
For the past two centuries it has been agreed by all parties—indeed, by everyone—that even quite a small change in


our constitution requires the assent of the people. In the two major constitutional crises of 1831–32 and 1910–11, the proposed changes in the constitution were far smaller than those involved in the Bill, because no transfer of legislative power to any authority outside the country was involved. Indeed, such a transfer was not even dreamed of. In both 1910 and 1831the rights of the British electorate were extended, whereas in this Bill they are being curtailed. Yet in both those crises it was agreed by virtually everybody—the Tory Party most notably, the Liberal Party and the Sovereign—that the assent of the electorate clearly given must be obtained. Indeed in 1831, when Parliament blocked the Reform Bill, Lord Grey, as Prime Minister, appealed to the country.
It is worth quoting what G. M. Trevelyan in his British History in the Nineteenth Century and After said of that decision:
Ministers by the boldness of their appeal to the country established the fundamental principle of the new constitution that in the last resort the opinion of the nation was to count for more than the opinion of the legislator.
That was the judgment of a great Liberal historian on the 1831 election. It shows how ignorant of the British tradition are those people who think that Parliament alone can decide an issue of this magnitude. They are being a good deal less democratic than Lord Grey and Lord John Russell in 1831.
Similarly in 1910, when all that was at stake was a transfer of power from the House of Lords to the elected House, two successive elections were required by the King, demanded by the Tory Opposition and granted by the Liberal Government before the Parliament Bill passed the Lords. We have been told today that only Tory Prime Ministers have advocated referenda. But in that case a Referendum Bill was prepared by the Asquith Government, and at the same time a referendum was proposed as a permanent feature of the constitution by the Tory leaders of the day. There was virtually no one in the 1910 controversy who did not agree that popular assent was necessary for a change which was trivial compared with that which is now proposed.
As I see it, it is popular assent which is the essential principle. Whether it is given by a General Election or a referendum is a matter of circumstances. In 1831 and 1910 the fact was that the two major parties in the country were clearly divided on the major issue at stake, and obviously a General Election was the right answer. But if a General Election is to be denied to us, particularly when the division is plainly today not between the parties but, as we all know, to a considerable extent within them, a referendum is surely the only remaining method of giving the public a fair chance to choose. Indeed, if a General Election is refused, a referendum is the only practical method so far as I can see.
Referenda on one subject or another have been advocated not merely by Mr. Asquith in 1910 and by the Tory leaders of various dates but also by the greatest parliamentarian of this century, Sir Winston Churchill. It is worth looking at what Sir Winston Churchill actually said on 18th May, 1945, when he was proposing a two-year prolongation of the war-time Parliament, for which, of course, there was no electoral mandate He said:
I am conscious, however, in the highest degree, of our duty to strengthen ourselves by direct expression of the people's will…Let us discuss means of taking the nation's opinion—for example, a referendum—on the issue whether in these conditions the life of this Parliament should be further prolonged.
That was merely a question of prolonging the life of one Parliament for a further two years. How profoundly different that was from the attitude of the Prime Minister today, who seems to have little regard for a direct expression of the nation's will. For no honest person can seriously pretend, in spite of anything that may have been said this afternoon, that the expression in the last Tory election manifesto,
Our sole commitment is to negotiate; no more, no less",
conveyed any meaning other than that there was no mandate to conclude a settlement without further authority. If that is not so, why the word "sole" and why the words "no more, no less"? To pretend otherwise here is to descend to very murky depths of political deception.

Mr. Anthony Fell: At the last General Election, was not the trouble that neither side had the courage to put before the electorate what it really felt? Surely that is what happened. Neither side could possibly have said what it really believed. Neither side said that, and that is the trouble.

Mr. Jay: I believe that is true. But, whether true or not, it is quite clear that the Tory election manifesto did not give a mandate for this policy.
Nor, indeed, are Sir Winston Churchill and the Liberal and Tory leaders of 1910 the only distinguished Members of the House of Commons who have advocated a referendum when genuinely constitutional issues were at stake. To their credit, so has the present Parliamentary Liberal Party, notably the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who both voted—I have checked this today and I do not think that the Leader of the Liberal Party will deny it—on 14th February, 1969, for a Bill to authorise referenda in the case of self-determination for parts of the United Kingdom. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman in the least for that. I merely recall that he did so, and that so did the present Liberal Members for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) and for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). I think I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) was a Teller on that occasion. Indeed, the Scottish Liberals' election manifesto for 1970 spoke of a referendum on the Common Market as a "further democratic step" which might be taken.
Any attempt, therefore, by Parliament to take into its own hands a revolutionary decision of this kind would be to undermine the moral compact between Parliament and people that Parliament should act only with the ultimate consent of the people, which is the real basis of our constitutional and political stability. If one breaches that, one may breach not only the foundations of law and order but the respect of people for Parliament itself. Indeed, because of the unwillingness of the Prime Minister so far to honour his pledge in this matter, there is outside now, on this issue, a growing feeling of Parliament against the people, and that is very dangerous to all of us. If hon.

Members ignore this, they are ignoring what is happening outside.
The reputation of Parliament was enormously enhanced in 1832 and in the years around 1910 precisely because, in Sir Winston Churchill's words, it strengthened itself by a direct expression of the people's will. Some people here do not seem to realise the harm we shall do to Parliament if we ignore that lesson and try to arrogate to ourselves a right which Parliament did not claim even 140 years ago.
It does not escape the public that the Government are apparently anxious to avoid either an election or a referendum, even a consultative referendum, on this issue, because they believe they would lose, thus confessing their belief that they have not got the full-hearted consent of the people. But they may be wrong. None of us really knows what the result would be. But I should have thought we could all have been good enough democrats to accept the result, whatever it is. That is the true solution. I should accept it even if I disagreed with it.
But a great many people would not accept a constitutional outrage by which a Bill mutilating the powers of Parliament and the electorate was forced through without mandate, without proper debate or amendment, without a General Election, without a referendum and in direct breach of the Prime Minister's pledge. A Bill so imposed on the country would not have constitutional or moral validity. There would not be the normal moral obligation on the citizen to obey legislation flowing from it. Millions would take the same view if no assent was given first by the people themselves.
Fortunately, to save us from that, the electorate have another remedy available to them. The previous Leader of the House, now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has confirmed in this case too that what one Parliament can do another can undo. If both these Amendments are rejected and the Prime Minister persists in pressing on with the Bill in contempt of the nation's wishes, that is assuredly what will happen after the next General Election. But how very much better it would be for all of us if, in Sir Winston Churchill's words, we took the nation's opinion before and not after we part with the Bill.

6.30 p.m.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: I never expected to hear the author of that arrogant remark that it is the gentleman in Whitehall who knows what is good for the people better than the people do themselves advocating a referendum, and I must tell the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) that I do not care which Prime Ministers, or which leaders in past history, considered a referendum and rejected the idea. For all I know King Canute, King Alfred or Ethelred the Unready may have done so and rejected the idea. It seems to have nothing to do with the subject that we are debating today.
I very much regret that so much parliamentary time is being wasted today on these two Amendments. I should have preferred a voluntary timetable to be agreed at the beginning between the opponents of the Bill and those who want to see it on the Statute Book. That would have ensured serious debate on all the Amendments that were selected.
Amendment No. 23, which refers to the holding of a General Election, cannot be taken seriously. Everyone in the House and outside it knows that it is not possible to seek "the express consent of the British people" on a single issue by this method. It just is not "on". For a start, the most important section of the Labour Party's manifesto would have to be framed to offer three choices. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster drew attention to the fact that the Opposition are, unhappily, split in three directions.
Their manifesto would have to say that it is their policy to re-negotiate the terms and if the Six refuse
we would sit down amicably and discuss the situation with them".—[Official Report, 28th October, 1971; Vol. 823, c. 2103–4.]
That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Secondly, "It is our policy to take Britain into the Common Market on the present terms which we regard as being every bit as good as we ourselves could have obtained". Thirdly, "It is our policy to take Britain out of the Common Market as we are against joining, no matter what terms are obtained". All three statements would have to appear in the manifesto, and

hon. Gentlemen opposite could take their pick according to taste and delete those two which did not apply to them.
Incidentally, referring to the third possibility, that of taking Britain out of the Common Market, which I understand is the policy of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), what has happened to the argument that joining the Community would be an irrevocable decision? It is said now by some hon. Gentlemen opposite that if a Labour Government came to power they would take us out of the Community. We have heard no more about it being an irrevocable decision. It is one of those major arguments which have been dropped, and which never had anything to be said for them anyhow.
Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) said, the Common Market was a major issue at the last General Election. It was, at any rate, a major issue in so far as it is possible for the Common Market to be a major issue at an election. All three major parties made it clear that they were strongly in favour of Britain joining the Community if satisfactory terms could be obtained. It is as simple as that. The Liberal Party went a little further in that it did not hedge its remarks as much as the two major parties did, and I admire it for that. It was more honest than the two other parties.
The quotation out of context of the sentence from the Conservative manifesto
Our sole commitment is to negotiate; no more, no less
is wicked. Anybody who understands simple English and reads that sentence in context knows that we stated flatly that we saw immense economic and political advantages in joining. Our commitment was to negotiate, no more, no less, and if we got good terms we would recommend them to Parliament. That is what it amounted to, and that is a fair paraphrase.

Mr. Michael Foot: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that it is wicked to quote the phrase "to negotiate; no more, no less" out of context, what does he say of the election address of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said:
It is quite impossible to decide whether it will be in our interest to join until we know


the terms. Our sole commitment is to negotiate: no more, no less.
Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman call that wicked?

Sir T. Beamish: Not at all. It says almost the same thing. Our sole commitment was "to negotiate, no more, no less" because we did not know the terms. Everybody can understand that. I should not wish to re-write one word of our election manifesto on this subject, and the sentence to which I have referred has been taken out of context too many times.
It is a great pity that the three Front Bench spokesmen appointed by the Leader of the Opposition are all known to be against our joining the Community on any terms, and thus they do not reflect the official position of the Opposition. This has, incidentally, made great difficulties for many hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I do not think that there is a serious case for the Amendment asking for a General Election. I think that when the time comes for a General Election it will be fought, as usual, on broad issues and be won by the party which offers a coherent and acceptable set of policies, and the party which has consistent leadership. A General Election fought on the single issue of the Common Market would make sense only if the pro-Europeans were to form some sort of coalition to fight the election, and if the anti-Europeans were to form one as well, and if the latter were to win the election Cabinet-making would be a remarkably interesting exercise.
No doubt the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale would become Prime Minister and go to No. 10. I expect that he would ask my right hon. Friend for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) to be his Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Members for Stepney (Mr. Shore) and Workington (Mr. Peart) would have to be found places, as would the hon. Members for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), and perhaps seats in another place——

Hon. Members: Wasting time.

Sir T. Beamish: I am pointing out the absurdity of holding a General Election

on this issue, and this is my way of doing it. That would be bound to happen. There would have to be a coalition. Perhaps seats would be found in another place for Mr. Scanlon, Mr. Jones and Mr. Clive Jenkins. I regard the proposition that there should be a General Election on this single issue as absurd, and I should like now to turn to the other Amendment which suggests a referendum.
Amendment No. 205 suggests "a consultative advisory referendum, having no binding effect upon the Government". This Amendment is rather less bizarre than Amendment No. 23, nevertheless, I think that it is opportunist and, in both senses of the word, rather intriguing. It seems to me to be a contradiction in terms, though I do not make too much of that. My understanding is that a referendum is binding. Perhaps that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said that he would happily swap "plebiscite" for "referendum". I do not think that it matters very much, and I do not want to make too much of this. My understanding is that a plebiscite is generally accepted as advisory, or confirming action that has been taken, but that is a lawyer's point, and it could be argued one way or the other.
Let me turn, instead, to dismiss the other arguments which have been touched upon briefly: first that plebiscite in Northern Ireland on the nationality issue bears any relationship to a referendum in Britain, including Northern Ireland, on the Common Market; secondly, that the French referendum has anything to do with the matter.
Under the 1949 Act, Northern Ireland has been given a pledge that there will be no change in nationality as between citizenship of the United Kingdom and citizenship of the Republic of Eire, which is a foreign country, unless a plebiscite is held, and until there is a majority in favour of this change of nationality. As we all know, no change of citizenship is involved in membership of the EEC. We are required to pool our national sovereignty in certain clearly defined and limited fields with other like-minded nations, and that is an entirely different matter.
Furthermore—although one might not suspect this from listening to the debates


during the many days and nights that we have spent so far on the Bill—any extension of the pooling of our sovereignty beyond these limited and clearly defined fields could come about only, if it had any real importance, with the agreement of us at Westminster. That cannot be disputed.
The purpose of the French referendum, as the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) reminded us, was to divide the opposition. It has already succeeded in dividing the opposition rather neatly into three. There would not be much point in holding it for that reason here, because the Opposition, unhappily, have already obliged and done the job themselves.
If a referendum were held, how would the question be framed? It could not be, as some have suggested, a simple "for" or "against" the issue. When asked on a BBC programme whether there was a gradual slide in the Labour Party towards opposition to entry, the Leader of the Opposition said:
I am standing absolutely firm on that. Our objection is to the terms. That is the issue.
We all know that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that better terms could have been obtained for New Zealand dairy farmers and those Commonwealth countries which are heavily dependent on the production and export of cane sugar, and that our inshore fishermen might have got a better deal. But in all these three respects those intimately affected have expressed themselves pretty satisfied. The right hon. Gentleman also had a reservation about transitional arrangements for our contribution to the common budget. If he genuinely thinks that he could negotiate better terms, that is fine. The prospect of having any major changes made in the terms obtained is nil.
A "yes" or "no" in a referendum would have to be qualified by a remark like "I am in favour of joining, but not on the present terms" or "I am definitely in favour of joining, but on different terms." Voters would have to indicate to which terms they objected if the referendum was to make any sense. If one simply asks "Are you for or against?", many important issues are completely blurred.

Mr. Enoch Powell: Does my hon. and gallant Friend know how this problem is being solved in the other countries which are holding referenda?

Sir T. Beamish: I do not know precisely how it is being solved, but I stick to the view that a straight question, asking whether a person was in favour of joining, would be extremely misleading and might lead to the wrong result. [Hon. Members: "Ah."] When I say "the wrong result", I mean of course that it would not be—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The truth will out.

Sir T. Beamish: —a true test of public opinion. Although I do not set much store by opinion polls, a much fairer test was the question asked in November. 1971, by Opinion Research Centre:
Do you think it would be in the national interest for Britain to join the EEC?
The answer to that question was 51 per cent. "yes", 30 per cent. "no", and 19 per cent. "I do not know".
The question was also asked:
Do you think that joining would be in your own interest?
The interesting thing there was that the figures were almost exactly reversed—51 per cent, "no" and 32 per cent. "yes".
There is another snag about a referendum. The size of the poll might be derisory. I asked an organisation which calls itself the Political Freedom Movement—[Laughter.]—it is quite a laugh, if one knows who the people are—for all the information that it has been able to collect about the referendum by secret postal votes up to 19th October last year. It gave me 24 results. In only one did more than half of those consulted appear even to answer the question, and in many cases only about 10 per cent. of those who had the right to take part bothered to answer at all. This does not fill me with very much hope that there would be a particularly high poll for a referendum—rather the opposite.
6.45 p.m.
To some extent, this is idle speculation. This is rather a fruitless issue and a debate which can only widen the gulf between Parliament and a sorely-tried


electorate. The Leader of the Opposition has described the referendum as "repugnant" to him. It should be equally repugnant to see it adopted as a popular ploy and sold to the public in cellophane and ribbons, tied up like a package of democracy—or "participation" as the Chairman of the Labour Party would probably say.
It is nothing of the kind. I have every sympathy with those who genuinely fear or dislike the concept of Britain joining the EEC, to whom the risks and problems still loom larger than the potential advantages. I understand how deeply they feel about the pooling of national sovereignty, even in the limited fields which the Treaty of Rome describes, and for reasons of enlightened self-interest. Most of us would understand that.
But those hon. Members who first exploit this fear of change and then seek to establish a precedent which would undermine the sovereignty of Parliament in this real sense are behaving irresponsibly. To suggest that a referendum would be only advisory is a bogus distinction. To be blunt, it is a deliberate attempt to deceive. But it fools no one. Either Parliament continues to shoulder the weight of political decision or Parliament abdicates its responsibilities. There cannot be any half measures. It is inconceivable that Parliament would fly in the face of a decision in a referendum, whichever way it went.
The responsibility for deciding these great matters in the national interest has been entrusted to us by the electorate. It is the job that they chose us to do and the job that they pay us to do. The electorate have a right to expect us to keep faith with them, to take these decisions honestly and to have the courage of our convictions. Hindsight shows that our decisions are by no means always right. How could they be? Parliament often makes mistakes.
Nor, for that matter, is public opinion any less fallible. If the people had been asked to chose in the 1930s between guns and butter by referendum, there is not the slightest doubt what the answer would have been. It would have been butter, and we should have lost the war. Then we should have had a European unity of a very different kind. One has only to study the numbers of people who

signed the Peace Ballot circulated by the Peace Pledge Union in the 1930s—11 million people—and the result of the by-election at Fulham, East to see what would have happened. That was a great national matter which Parliament must decide.
On the other hand, as the right hon. Member for Dundee, East pointed out, although from the opposite point of view, the public were wiser than the last Government on the question of nationalising the steel industry. If public opinion polls are anything to go by, they were two to one against this and against any further nationalisation of any kind.
Lastly, I absolutely reject the argument that having a referendum on this issue would not create a precedent. There would be bound to be demands for referenda on all kinds of other subjects—important and not so important. It is not the wisdom or the fallibility of Parliament or public which is on trial in this debate; it is our representative system of government. For all its faults it has served us long and well. I think it will continue to do so only as long as the Members of this House, whatever their views on this or any other issue, do their job honestly and conscientiously, putting the national interest above everything else.
This reminds me to make a remark about something my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said about the vote on the Second Reading, which he regarded as a better test of the will of Parliament than the vote in October, forgetting to mention that the Opposition, which was officially in favour of Britain going into the Community, had a three-line Whip against the Second Reading. Therefore this was a singularly unconvincing comment.
I agree, incidentally, with something the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, East said, that the majority in October would have been substantially higher, perhaps 200, had there been a free vote on both sides of the House, and I think we should bear this in mind. After all, there was an enormous majority in another place—390, or something like that.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Who elected them?

Sir T. Beamish: I thought the hon. Gentleman knew that it is not an elected Chamber. On the other hand, it is a Chamber which embraces a large number of people with a great deal of experience and wisdom behind them, and it is of interest to note that it was by an overwhelming majority on the Labour side that the vote for going into the Community was carried. The majority was just as big on the Labour side as it was on the Conservative side.
I conclude by saying that it is not unpopular decisions or even errors of judgment that shake public confidence in Parliament. These are strong words, I know, but it is humbug, posturing and even deviousness, in my view, to behave in the way we are doing over these Amendments. Everything that has gone into the framing of these Amendments serves to bring this House into disrepute. I think both Amendments deserve to be roundly defeated, and I am sure they will be.

Mr. Benn: I ask the indulgence of the Committee to intervene briefly to convey officially the support of the Opposition for the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). I am very conscious of the fact, and the House of Commons knows it from following the newspapers, that the majority on the Labour side in favour of that Amendment is narrow. Both in the Executive and in the Shadow Cabinet, and even in the Parliamentary Labour Party, there was a substantial body of people who thought that Amendment to be wrong, but in conveying our view and recommendation to the Committee that it should support the Amendment I want to give some reasons why that should be done. I have to be careful and moderate in my recommendations since my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has described it as a repugnant procedure. I disagree with him, but he said it and I shall therefore have to moderate my own view.
Where I share the view of the opponents of a referendum, including many of my hon. Friends on the back benches, is that it is a pity that a major constitutional change—and to have a referendum even on this is a major constitutional change—should have come up so late in the debate and should occupy so little time in our discussions on the Bill. The

truth is that the question of how we decide the European matter has emerged late in the debate, not from lack of trying by some of us to get it discussed earlier. I believe, and hon. Members know it to be my view, that how we decide whether we enter the Common Market is at least as important as what that decision itself is.
Turning to a practical argument that has not found much space in the debates we have had so far today, the House of Commons is divided on Europe. Both parties are divided on Europe. Indeed I would go further and say that the House is fragmented on the European question, for I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) that there are many different views.
To go further, I think there are many hon. Members who lack the certainty that is given to some and who find that their attitudes and anxieties extend even into their own judgment. But instead of laughing at each other, as has happened today, instead of exchanging quotations and mocking each other as we approach this issue, I think the Committee would do well to approach the matter with a greater respect for the difficulty of reaching a wise decision. It cannot have given much pleasure to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) or our right hon. Friends who resigned with him to have parted company with their colleagues on a matter of this kind. It cannot really give much pleasure to hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the hon. Member for Banbury, who has tabled Amendment No. 205, who like most Members of this House have tried to give devoted service to their party, to find themselves in a position in which they might prefer to see the other side in power to avoid the consequences they fear would be so serious for the country. When Members of Parliament on both sides who have a long record of service to their parties find themselves in the position in which we find ourselves put, this is not a moment to mock, to laugh, to trade quotations that may somehow help our short-term interests.

Mr. Thorpe: If the right hon. Gentleman is right, and I think he is, in his thesis that the House of Commons is fragmented and if he feels compassion for those in all parts of the House who


find themselves in disagreement, does it not make it sheer hypocrisy for him to have supported throughout the whipping system being applied to the vote in October and still more in February?

Mr. Benn: My concern throughout has been a free vote of the British people. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. He knows very well that the effect of the vote of 18th October and the effect of the votes tonight will be to deny to the British public the right he claims as a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Thorpe: Let us hear about this place first.

Mr. Benn: That is no recommendation for the parliamentary system. I will deal with the right hon. Gentleman's points as they come. The British parliamentary system cannot survive if we are to have distinguished parliamentarians saying "Let us think about this place first", because if that is what Parliament is about there is no reason why anybody outside should support it.

Mr. Thorpe: Freedom starts here.

Mr. Benn: Now we have it. Freedom began before the House of Commons was set up. Freedom was forced on the House by people outside it. Freedom is defended by the ballot box and not by the Division Lobby. If the Liberal Party now says that freedom rests in Parliament instead of seeing itself as the guarlian of freedom outside Parliament, no wonder it is a tiny minority. I began with a pledge to be conciliatory and it is not my wish that I should provoke the one party in the House that has consistently supported the view of entry from the beginning.
There are factors in this debate which the House of Commons must take seriously. I believe the first such factor to be that neither side will accept the verdict of the House of Commons on the European question. Those who favour entry will never give up their advocacy of entry. We have seen that from those who have separated themselves from my colleagues and myself on this question. Similarly, they must learn that those who will not support entry without consent will never support entry without consent. Even if that entry is forced through the

House of Commons, forced to Royal Assent, and the celebrations in Brussels take place in January, that will not be accepted.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) rose——

Mr. Benn: Let me finish this point. This is the difficulty which we face. We could cope with our own disagreement if it were this place first. We could cope with our disagreement in the ordinary parliamentary way. What we cannot do is to cope ourselves, in the ordinary parliamentary way, with deep differences reflecting deep interests that have been wholly shut out from the decision we are asked to take.

Mr. Maclennan: My right hon. Friend has rested his argument on the inflexibility of those who are committed in favour of the Common Market and those who are against it, but some of us remember very clearly—indeed, his own example speaks loud in this matter—how flexible some politicians are able to be.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Benn: I take my hon. Friend's point. I am not one of those—and I have made this clear every time I have spoken in the House—who have been committed at all costs to our joining the Common Market or to our staying out. I have been consistent in saying for many years that this issue must be decided by the people, and I will accept the popular verdict, whichever way it goes. But if flexibility in response to a developing situation is an offence, there is not one man, including my hon. Friend, who will be able to claim that he came down the motorway of life without turning the steering wheel to left or to right to take account of changing circumstances.
The vote on 28th October was a majority that was not normally reached. It was reached before the treaty was published and before the Bill was published. It was reached by a coalition of people voting together who had never sought together the mandate which they claimed they had in the Lobby that day. It is a constitutional change. It is an irreversible decision. I heard the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes say on television that it was not irreversible, but that cannot easily be said by leaders on the Front Bench. If our


Continental partners-to-be thought that we were lighthearted about our attitude to entry, they would not have us in. So the case must be presented as being a solemn, irreversible decision.
There is a growing cynicism with politics. This argument is advanced by both sides in this controversy. We differ about what causes the cynicism. Some say that it is caused by politicians who change their minds. Others say that it is caused by Members of Parliament with a contempt for their electors, supporters and people generally.
When members of the public see Parliament trying to solve this problem in this way, they see one of two things. They may see the House of Commons united under the Whips, knowing that they are men of conscience voting against their conscience. I get no satisfaction from seeing the House trying to settle this matter in a way in which Members are unable to follow their consciences. Indeed, I have a deep sense of repugnance against it.

Mr. Rippon: A free vote.

Mr. Benn: Yes—and a free vote by the British public. The right hon. and learned Gentleman missed the earlier part of the debate when we dealt with this matter. I am putting forward my view. I should like to see the British public, on a free vote, decide the matter on the basis of a recommendation which came from a free vote of the House. What I will not accept is the House, on a free vote, using that vote to deny the electors the right to say whether they wish Britain to join. That is the alternative which the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes, and it is not acceptable.
Mr. Selwyn Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman says that we have already dealt with this matter. He has been asked a specific question, namely, given that we have a party system and a whipping system, why did the right hon. Gentleman deny Members of Parliament the right to make their own decision on the merits of the matter?

Mr. Benn: That is a very fair point to make if we couple it with a decision that the result of a Commons vote would be our advice to the people when they voted themselves. The point of sub-

stance is that either members of the public see men of conscience voting against their consciences, which shakes their confidence in Parliament, or they see both parties divided, which also shakes their confidence in Parliament, because both parties being divided and carrying through a major constitutional change without a mandate is destructive of the basis upon which our system works.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Sir Alfred—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Sir Robert. The chairmanship of the Committee changes as rapidly as the views, so I am told, of some of our colleagues.

There are various choices open to the House of Commons. We can go on with the Bill as we have been doing and continue to exclude members of the public from the decision. They do not reply to postal votes sent out by Members. They know that nobody will take the slightest notice of them. If we exclude members of the public, they will have only one thing to be interested in—the personal squabbles, as they see it, of Members of Parliament; and do not be surprised when confidence in Parliament diminishes if people are confined to understanding those aspects of the parliamentary scene which they are allowed to understand, namely, the arguments we have between ourselves.

One day the people will wake up to find that the powers they lent to their Members are no longer available to take back to themselves. The House may think that not many people are interested in this matter, but when the electors discover that the laws which have been made and are enforced in the courts cannot be changed by any man they elect—Labour, Liberal, Conservative or Communist—the explosion of rage should not take us by surprise. Do we imagine that Scotland and Wales will be unaffected when this happens? There are already stresses and strains among people in Scotland and Wales about their being governed by an English majority from London. Why should they accept being governed from Brussels and represented by Englishmen from London? The demand either to secede altogether or to join independently will develop if we are carried in without consent.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Some Members on both sides of the House will resent the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that Scotland and Wales are represented by English Members from London. Some of us like to think that Welsh constituencies, and no doubt Scottish constituencies, are represented by Welshmen, and Scotsmen, from those constituencies.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I said that Welsh and Scottish interests will be represented in Brussels by a predominantly English Parliament. The feeling of remoteness among Scottish and Welsh people will become greater. If I put the point wrongly, I apologise.
Another respect in which public anger will be caused is this. If there is further development of the Community, if we have an economic and monetary union, if we have a defence community and political reunification, and if every time the French proceed by referenda we are hogtied by Clause 2, the public will not understand it. People will not accept that the Government, without consent, have put a statutory straitjacket on parliamentary debate in advancing the Community, whereas France is allowed to proceed by popular vote.
Although referenda in France have been the agents of presidents, they have also destroyed presidents. President de Gaulle disappeared, hoist on his own petard. There are safeguards in a referendum for the French which are utterly denied us—not just now, but in any development of the Community.
I do not want to sound alarmist, but we should be very foolish if we supposed that there were not people in this country who cared as much about being subordinated to Brussels without consent as so-called loyalist Protestants in Northern Ireland care about being subordinated to Dublin without consent. They may be a small minority, as minorities are everywhere when violence errupts, but if the feeling that the independent right of the electors, through the ballot box, to decide constitutional questions is as deeply entrenched as the feeling of Ulster loyalists, as I believe it is, there could well be trouble following a decision to enter. No doubt the Government, with their police and perhaps a little advice from

the French police in Calais, could put it down. It is better to say it now than wait until it happens and then wonder why it has happened. [Hon. Members: "Stir it up."] I am not stirring it up.
I say this to the Government. The capacity to put down that sort of thing, if it arises, depends upon one's being able to say to the man whom one is putting down "Change your Member of Parliament, change the law, and you can have your way by peaceful means". However, if some power, some law—the power to tax, for example—is put outside the control of the British electorate, one destroys at any rate a part of the moral authority that allows one to deal with those who struggle against what has been done.
The Government cannot, on the one hand, stand on the issue of law and order and, on the other hand, themselves deliberately fracture the delicate social fabric of the social contract upon which our system of government has been founded.
How does the House of Commons settle the issue? A General Election is the traditional way, if it is to be that way. I personally would accept unhesitatingly, as I think that the whole House of Commons would, a Conservative re-election at any election that occurred now on this basis, as settling the European question. Of course it would settle it, because the country knows the Bill, it knows the terms and it knows the treaty. If the Government were to be re-elected, we would accept that.
However, the Government would not be re-elected. An hon. Member can gel a round of cheers by mocking his constituents in the Chamber. Today I have heard many hon. Members laughing at the ignorance of their constituents. Hon Members have asked "Who knows what a referendum is?" By God, the miners won the right to strike and their battle in the recent dispute on a referendum. The British people know the meaning of the right to choose through the ballot box. Hon. Members can mock their electors with impunity from the safety of the Chamber, but when the battle is taken to a General Election the Government would be utterly defeated if they were to deny the British public the right to decide the matter. I warn hon. Members not to be surprised if the British


public laughs at the British Parliament if hon. Members are so quick to laugh at the British public when debating its rights.
If there is an election, I believe that the Labour Party will come out for a referendum in its manifesto. I will say why—because it is the only way to put this issue to the public. If we were to say "Vote Labour and we will never enter Europe", we should be just as guilty as the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We should be denying those in Britain who want to join Europe the right to do so. If we were to say that we would renegotiate and go in without consent, we should be guilty of the same offence, because we would be saying "You must take our word instead of that of the present Prime Minister".
I therefore believe that a referendum must and will be offered in a General Election. After all, if the Labour Party is to offer a referendum in its manifesto, why wait? We can do it tonight. We have a parliamentary majority tonight if the Opposition support their colleagues for a referendum tonight. If the Government will not accept a referendum, we get an election, which is what all my hon. Friends want. Therefore, the issue of a General Election and that of a referendum are inextricably bound up together.
I will now deal shortly with the arguments which have been advanced against a referendum. The first was that it would split political parties. Does anybody seriously think that the division in our parties is not well enough understood for a short referendum campaign to worsen it? Indeed, it would settle it, because both factions in both parties would accept the public's verdict.
Second, would it defeat entry? The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes said that it might given the wrong result, and then he corrected himself. There are those who oppose a referendum because they think that the British public would not accept entry. There are those who say that it would somehow magically reproduce Nazi Germany, Gaullist France or the stodgy Swiss. But a referendum is only a ballot box. It reflects the people and the values that go to the ballot box. A Danish referendum gives a Danish result. A Nazi referendum gives a Nazi result. A Swiss referendum gives a Swiss result.
Are we so far from our own electorate that we are frightened that they might vote in the ballot box in such a way as suddenly to transform Britain from a parliamentary democracy into a tyranny at the mercy of the Executive or the electorate, albeit any more Conservative in a referendum than they are in far too many General Elections? Are we to be told that we are to be frieghtened of our own electorate?
I think that the real reasons why this is rejected are worth studying. If the Committee will bear with me for a minute or two I will try to analyse the real reasons against the referendum. First, it is contrary to our traditions and the whole basis of representative parliamentary democracy. Second, it establishes a precedent which, if followed, would lead to serious consequences. Third, the public are not really equipped to reach decisions of this kind. Fourth, Britain is different from other countries. Fifth, the advocates are insincere, they have changed their minds and are motivated by expediency or, as The Times parliamentary correspondent put it today with marvellous economy of words, are "humbugs". Those are the reasons which have been argued against the referendum.

Mr. Rippon: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that every one of those arguments except the last has been reiterated over and over and over again by the leader of his own party?

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Benn: Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman wait, if he has the time, to hear what Lord Salisbury said about Disraeli in 1867, which is the most marvellous quotation of them all.
If the arguments that I have summarised are valid, the case against the referendum is overwhelming. I cannot hope in one speech to deal with all of these arguments. What I can do is to show the Committee the historical origins of these arguments.
Sir Robert Peel, in opposing the Reform Bill, said this in 1831:
I am convinced that it is not founded on the acknowledged principles of the constitution—because it does not give security to the prerogative of the Crown—because it does not guarantee the legitimate rights, influences and privileges of both Houses of Parliament.


Peel said this first when he opposed the Reform Bill. This argument about its being contrary to our parliamentary traditions has been used in opposition to any extension of the people's rights which has been proposed over the past 140 years.
The second argument is that it establishes a precedent. I invite hon. Members to listen to this quotation from Asquith on votes for women in 1910:
In the long run, if you grant the franchise to women, you will have to grant it on the widest possible basis, and with all the consequences to which I have referred…"—[Official Report, 12th July, 1910; Vol. 19, c. 250.]
Asquith was against votes for women because it would open the way to votes for everyone. That is exactly the argument that we have had in the course of this debate.
Lord Cranborne, later Lord Salisbury, attacked Disraeli's Reform Bill in 1867 on the same grounds.
The third argument is that the public are not equipped to reach decisions. Bagehot is the man to listen to here. He said this in 1872:
In plain English, what I fear is that both our political authorities will bid for the support of the working man; that both of them will promise to do as he likes if he will only tell them what it is, that, as he now holds the casting vote in our affairs, both parties will beg and pray him to give that vote to them. I can conceive of nothing more corrupting or worse for a set of poor ignorant people than that two combinations of well-taught and rich men should constantly offer to defer to their decision, and compete for the office of executing it. Vox populi will be Vox diaboli if it is worked in that manner.
That is the case against the referendum. If it is looked at in one way, of course it is the case against the referendum. If it is looked at in another way, this having happened, it is our traditional parliamentary way of life that we are being asked to defend.
Britain is different. Asquith explained why votes for women in Australia were all right because Australia had such a sparse population, but Britain was different.
The fifth argument is that the advocates are not sincere. One cannot do better than David Wood's attack on humbug. The arguments against the referendum are

the very same arguments as have been used against every extension of the people's rights for 140 years. It follows the same pattern. First, the argument is ignored. It is described as a fringe issue. It is then described as trendy. Then it is mocked. Then it is laughed at. Then hon. Members who do not support the referendum laugh at their own constituents and laugh at those who advocate the referendum. Then they warn against the referendum and against its dangers. Then they denounce it. Then they capitulate. Then they forget and hope that everyone else forgets too. It is always the same process—ignore, mock, laugh, warn, denounce, capitulate, then forget and then hope that everybody else forgets that one has gone through the process.
That was how the British Empire be came decolonised and there were just as many humbugs, according to The Times, voting for freedom in the colonies as there will be voting for the referendum tonight because there were many people who wished that the public, the people, would go away. But when they did not go away, they found it more advisable to accommodate themselves to what the public wanted. The arguments are always the same. They are always wrong and when they are brought up again they are always supported by certain minorities.
They are supported by the rich because, of course, the rich are afraid that the public, if they had a vote, might be interested in the redistribution of wealth. They are opposed by racial minorities because all racial minorities are a bit nervous and that is why we hear about immigrants. They are opposed by a particular section of the Left who are afraid that if they had to convince the public that Socialism was right they would never succeed. Therefore they would rather sneak into Parliament to do it before the public discover.
We heard that argument a little tonight, that one would never convince the public on nationalisation. Why not? It is a very powerful case. I am not interested in the sort of democratic Socialism that is so little democratic that one does not try to convert the public but slips in at the back door and does it when they do not notice.

Mr. Harold Lever: Mr. Harold Lever rose——

Mr. Benn: I will give way to my right hon. Friend because I like him.

Mr. Lever: There is a mutual response although we are both able to dissimulate our affection. My right hon. Friend calls voting nationalisation through the House and the abolition of hanging sneaking it through the House. Does that mean that he has now reached the position in his thinking that he will regard any such future actions by any Government as sneaking things through the House?

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman, who is a dear friend—and I seriously mean that—is a member of a European minority too and is reflecting some anxiety about minorities. As to the argument about hanging, may I put it to him like this. If the abolition of capital punishment is the case for parliamentary democracy it emerged on the scene 900 years too late and no one would have dreamed of advocating parliamentary democracy on the grounds that it abolished capital punishment, because the House of Commons was very slow to abolish capital punishment.
I would not like to base my case for parliamentary democracy on the ground that we succeed in defying public opinion over a prolonged period for such successes would be temporary and have no merit. In the end parliamentary democracy must mean that the people have their way. We can—for a time—dampen their passions, dilute their aspirations and defy their wishes, but in the end a democracy can only mean that the people have their way. The parliamentary tradition which I uphold is not in rigid rules. It is not frozen at particular times and is not tied to any one balance of power struck between Government and governed. It has always evolved by enlarging the public rô1e.
Tonight will not settle this matter. Even if the Amendment fails by the vote of the Government and by some abstentions from my hon. Friends, the clamour of those outside the House of Commons will continue to grow until it is heard on this and, if I might add, on other issues in which they believe that Parliament pays too little attention to their needs.
I would venture to prophesy that hon. Members who vote against or abstain will later live to hide today's HANSARD from their grandchildren, particularly its Division List, because they will want to avoid the embarrassment of explaining why they voted as they did I believe they will be ashamed at their blindness in failing to see that what they opposed in the name of parliamentary democracy was the floodtide of popular consent without which parliamentary democracy cannot survive. Trust between Parliament and the people must be a mutual trust. If we do not trust them, then not for long will they trust us.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has made a most impressive speech. [Interruption.] It concurs with my conclusion, and what could be more impressive than that!It was characterised, too, with great dialectical skill and vigour and exhibited a catholicity of affection which apparently included the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever). His speech was the more impressive in what he said about the referendum because he is known to have given great study to the matter. I would like to thank him also for what he said at the beginning of his speech in the context of his right hon. Friends who have just left the Front Bench and of my right hon. and hon. Friends who constitute the respective minorities on the two sides of the House.
I can speak with some feeling on this, having been in a minority ever since I became in a minority on the subject almost overnight, when the Conservative Party changed its view in 1961. Of course, it is wrong to make a fetish of consistency, but it would be still more wrong for any right hon. or hon. Member to pretend to a conversion which he has not sustained and to yield his principles and convictions to patronage, power, pressure or pusillanimity. That would bring parliamentary and public life into contempt and degradation more quickly than any honest differences of opinion, whether they cut across party lines or not.
I have approached both these Amendments from the point of view of a constitutional study of them, and as a result I do not find that Amendment No. 23 is


suited to the requirements of the situation. Of course, there is a good deal to be said for the underlying proposition that on a great and unique issue such as this a decision should be spread over two Parliaments. That would go some way to ensure the full-hearted consent of the people. But the Amendment contains the reference to express consent on this particular issue, and that is of very doubtful constitutional and practical validity. Anyone who doubted it before would have had his doubts set at rest in listening to the speech by the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson), who explained that, although he was a full-hearted advocate of entry on the terms as they exist, nevertheless he welcomed a General Election precisely because it would not be fought on this single issue but would be fought on the wide conspectus of matters on which he wished to register a view.
It is difficult in our system ever to identify any single issue at a General Election on which the verdict of the nation is being passed, more difficult in this modern and complex world than it was in the restricted franchise, for example, operating at the time of the Reform Bill in the last century. I would think it is particularly difficult in this issue of entry into the Common Market because of the lack of clarity and precision which has obtained, at any rate hitherto, in the election manifestos of the parties. The imprecisions of the 1970 manifestos are notorious. But the previous record was even worse in a way. Mr. Macmillan made his decision to apply for entry in 1961 without a single reference to the matter in the election manifesto of 1959. I speak subject to correction, but I believe the Labour Party manifesto of the same General Election contained no reference either.
Of course, elections in modern times are a general contest between parties on general and varied issues. Fortunately, electors still have some regard to personal considerations—witness the great triumph of our late and respected friend Stephen Davies over the party machine at the last Election. But the practicality is that unless one of the great parties comes out officially and unequivocally against entry there will be no sufficient opportunity for the people at a General Elec-

tion to express a view against entry. This is not likely to be the position, at any rate so far as we can judge from the present evidence of the intentions of the Leader of the Opposition, though I hasten to say that he is perhaps capable of changing and adapting them in due course.

7.30 p.m.

[MR. JOHN BREWIS in the Chair]

Because of these difficulties, and the importance of not denying a suitable expression to public opinion, we must consider the referendum unusual, as it is certainly but not impossible or constitutionally undesirable.

I believe we have three questions to answer in this debate. First, would a referendum be constitutionally appropriate? Secondly, if so, is it desirable in the circumstances of this case? Thirdly, if so, would it be practical; is there any mechanical obstacle to it? I propose to deal primarily with the first two of those questions. On the third, I say merely that I do not believe there are any mechanical difficulties in regard to a referendum. Norway and Denmark, much smaller countries than ours, seem to expect no difficulty in applying this machinery, and we would not either if we had the will to do it.

I come then to the question of its constitutional propriety. The case against the referendum is generally put on the basis that it involves a derogation from parliamentary sovereignty——

Mr. Harold Lever: Hear, hear.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear"——

Mr. Lever: It is beyond argument.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: It is only beyond argument if the right hon. Gentleman insists on clinging to the shibboleths and does not look at the evidence, at what is proposed in the referendum and how it fits into the constitutional pattern of this country. The sort of comment that he makes is based on a misconception of the kind of referendum required. It is clear from the terms of the Amendment that the referendum is a consultative advisory referendum, which of its nature cannot usurp the jurisdiction of Parliament. There cannot be anything unconstitutional or derogating from the


sovereignty of Parliament in providing means whereby Parliament can exercise that sovereignty with a fuller and clearer knowledge of what is the mind of the people. That, I say with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, is what is clear beyond argument to anybody who approaches the matter in an objective way.
A consultative referendum is not a substitute for Parliament but a supplement to it, a reinforcement of it; and there is no constitutional impropriety in that. That is amply supported by precedent. It is clear from the practice and precedents that a referendum, though not usual, is neither inadmissible nor improper. We do not have to prove that it is part of the normal usage. All we have to prove is that in this particular case, on this unique and irrevocable issue, it would not be wrong to apply it. Of course it is not usual, but, then, it is not usual to propose a measure which, without limitation of time, will subordinate the rights and powers of this Parliament to an outside body.
If we view this as a one-off case, as it is, a case arising from the unique and irrevocable character of the issue, there is ample support in the practice and precedents of this country without looking at any experience elsewhere. The record is clear. Parliament has put a referendum on the Statute Book for the United Kingdom and also for overseas. Politicians of unimpeachable constitutional propriety and unquestioned eminence have strongly advocated its use. Mr. Bruce Campbell in 1969, when he introduced a Ten-Minute Rule Bill on the matter, cited a precedent from the Statute Book for this country, in the Licensing Act, 1964.On that occasion he won considerable support in the Division Lobby, and not entirely from those who are opposed to entry into the Common Market. It will be interesting to see how many of those hon. Members accompany us into the Lobby on this matter tonight.
There is a great weight of statutory precedent for a referendum, falling mainly into two categories. First, there is the legislation provided by the old Imperial Parliament. Secondly, there is legislation providing for referenda as a basic, required and continuing ingredient of the constitutions of new Commonwealth

countries. Can it be said that it was right for the British Parliament to prescribe the medicine for other countries for which it was legislating, which were adopting parliamentary institutions on the Westminster model, and wrong in any circumstances to take that medicine ourselves?
In fact, British political history shows that it is not considered wrong. The precedents have been amply collected and clearly exhibited in the admirable and authoritative book of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart). I will cite only one or two to save the time of the Committee. For example, Arthur Balfour advocated a referendum on tariff reform in 1910, which was not surprising, as the Salisbury Government of which he was a member had legislated referenda into the Australian constitution in 1899.
The Liberals, for good measure, had followed suit in doing exactly the same thing in respect of Natal in 1909, and in a General Election of that year the Conservative Party broadened the constitutional conspectus of the referendum. It graduated from the particular to the general, incorporating referenda in its election manifesto as an appropriate means of providing the opportunity for expressing the nation's will on measures passed by the House of Commons but rejected by the House of Lords. It was not alone in looking to the referendum as a legitimate and useful parliamentary device. I commend to the Leader of the Liberal Party, that the then Liberal Government prepared legislation to give effect to the referendum in the Parliament Bill.
Those were not mere political flirtations of doubtful constitutional propriety. They were supported by the great authority of Dicey and Sir William Anson. In the consideration of the Parliament Bill in 1911 the Conservatives moved a new Clause to give effect to a referendum, and on that Mr. Balfour said, as recorded in my hon. Friend's book,
But still in the referendum lies our one hope of getting the sort of constitutional security which every other country but our own enjoys.
That has a rather topical ring when we see that the other three of our co-applicant countries are likely to enjoy exactly that safeguard.
Balfour and Asquith were not exactly credited with a revolutionary outlook on constitutional affairs, nor was Stanley Baldwin, who advocated the referendum in 1930 on Empire Free Trade. Nor was Winston Churchill, who made the characteristically Churchillian suggestion of a referendum of women on the question of votes for women. Perhaps he recalled that earlier suggestion when he made the suggestion to Mr. Attlee in 1945. When the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) recalls Lord Attlee's comment, he should in fairness recall who made the suggestion which evoked the comment, for he was surely as good a constitutionalist as Lord Attlee.
It is significant, when one looks at the history of the matter, that, although there was much discussion of tactics, methods and the desirability of holding a referendum, there was never any suggestion that it was an unconstitutional device. In considering who its proponents were, their parliamentary stature and their immaculate constitutional principles, could it possibly have been thought to have been so? If it was suitable for tariff reform, for women's suffrage, for the Parliament Bill and for the prolongation of Parliament, for licensing and the Commonwealth, why is it not suitable on this subject of entry into the Common Market, a subject so vast in scope and so irrevocable in effect?
This is a continuing history, with referenda taken in ten Commonwealth countries in the last quarter of a century. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) who spoke in such impressive terms, referred to the WestIndies Act, 1967, an Act to associate six Caribbean States together. A referendum was provided for in the Bill. At that time my right hon. Friend the present Minister for Overseas Development said:
We seem to be dealing with a number of Sixes' in different parts of the world…I can assure the hon. Lady that my hon. Friends and I will certainly give our support to the new arrangements for which the Bill provides."—[Official Report, 31st January, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 345–6.]
The new arrangements were for referenda. Surely the Government can give our Amendment that support which they so generously and unequivocally conveyed across the Floor of the House on that occasion.
The most recent instance is topical indeed—the Northern Ireland plebiscite. The questions of sovereignty for Northern Ireland are to be put to the test of public opinion in the form of a plebiscite. There is no difference between a plebiscite and a referendum. A plebiscite is referendum writ small. It is not right to say, as I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) suggested, that the difference is whether there is any binding force. The Oxford Dictionary defines a plebiscite as a
public expression of community's opinion with or without binding force
and continues "See Referendum". Again I say, if it is right for Northern Ireland, why is it not right for us on this issue?
I have not prayed in aid the French referendum. Why should we? Our Amendment was on the Order Paper before President Pompidou announced the French referendum. So if anyone was influenced by anybody, presumably he was influenced by us. At least we can ask: if it is appropriate for Frenchmen to be asked whether they are prepared to receive large sums of money under the common agricultural policy from Britain, surely it should be appropriate for the British people to be asked whether they are prepared to pay those large sums for the French? I am not praying in aid President Pompidou's referendum as a precedent for this. It would appear, sadly, that his motives are somewhat suspect in the matter, but, be that as it may, it is no criticism of a referendum as such.
The referendum that we are suggesting has nothing to do with votes of confidence in political parties or party leaders. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition could well serve the interests of the country by accepting a referendum on this matter and making it clear that no issue of personal or party confidence is involved and that it is a straight question demanding a straight answer on a straight issue. I therefore submit that it cannot be properly or plausibly argued that the concept of a referendum offends British constitutional practice. Clearly, it does not.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. William Small: Would the right hon. and learned


Gentleman take the principle of the referendum and the plebiscite as it applies in Scotland in terms of Bearsden and Bishopbriggs-Stevenston changing their status and the use of the veto poll in the community?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I had the inestimable privilege of being born in Scotland and having some early education there, but they quickly exported me and I am a little rusty. The hon. Gentleman therefore must forgive me on that point.
It is quite wrong to seek to dismiss a referendum as an alien device. It is in truth far less alien than many of the practices in which entry to the Community would inevitably and inextricably involve us. Countless repetition of that groundless charge does not advance the matter. The proposition does not become any more true by general repetition. Parrot cries of "alien device" and the term "anti-European" to describe those who are conscientiously opposed to entry to the Common Market but desire good relations with Europe—such pejorative phrases are an attempt to cloud the issue by the use of misleading terms and are to be deprecated if we want to keep this dialogue on a high level.
The referendum is not an alien device. It contains nothing repugnant to British parliamentary practice and doctrine. The most that can be said against it is that it is not often necessary to use it. That does not mean that it is not right to use it when occasion demands. That this is such an occasion cannot possibly be doubted. We are told that 78 per cent. of the British people think so, and many of those who do not think so are superior persons, èlitists, who do not trust the judgment or the instinct of the British people. The British people want a referendum, and, in my view, they are right to want it. They see it as their sole practical opportunity for having a say in this matter.
If it is denied to them, if they see that the country is taken into the Common Market without their having a say, I believe that it will leave a dangerous legacy of bitterness and disillusion. It will breed cynicism and indifference, weaken faith in our democratic and parliamentary institutions and stimulate the politics of protest and of direct action. For

these reasons, I urge support for the Amendment to give the British people that say in their own destiny and that voice in their own fate which is justly and properly theirs.

Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) has always been consistent both on the issue of Europe and on the issue of a referendum. He also showed, in his muted response to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) how advisable it is sometimes for leading counsel to have their juniors with them to take over points later on in the argument.
I agree that there are precedents for a referendum. To save the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who is well briefed on the matter, the necessity, I concede at once that I have supported referenda myself. It is a dangerous argument for a referendum that because we have exported parliamentary devices that gives respectability to them in this House also. I would point out to him that there are many colonies and territories which we have refused to saddle with the electoral system from which we suffer. The nearest example is Northern Ireland, which had proportional representation and which will inevitably need to have that system reintroduced. The issue is not whether there are precedents, but whether a referendum is the appropriate vehicle for deciding the issue of the Common Market. I believe that it is not.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) will at least take one piece of advice which he gave to us and will not give to his grand children the HANSARD of today's proceedings. As I see it, his argument was that there was a risk, no higher than that, of civil disorder; no doubt the police could deal with it. Then gratuitously there was thrown in a reference to the French police who might be asked to come and help. It was his view that unless we had a General Election or a referendum we stood the risk of civil disorder and total cynicism with our political system. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman will be quick to comment on whether I have put his speech accurately without assistance from any of his hon. Friends.
This came from the right hon. Gentleman who is the chairman of the executive of the party which at the last General Election made no reference in its manifesto to the necessity for a General Election before going into Europe. This was the right hon. Gentleman who got up to pledge support to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) for a vitally important Amendment which Members of the Labour Party themselves have not seen fit to table during any stage of these proceedings—a very strange style. What the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten, and this is an arrogant attitude to adopt towards the electorate, is what happens at General Elections. Is he aware that the electorate has the duty and right to cross-examine candidates on the views that they have on any issue under the sun? Is he in any doubt that the electors of Thirsk and Malton, Hertfordshire East, Banbury, Birmingham, Stechford or Manchester, Cheetham, knew precisely where their Members stood on this issue, and what were their inclinations?
It was open to any candidate to make his views abundantly plain. The electorate of Banbury knew that the hon. Member was going back as an anti-Marketeer; my electors knew that I was going back as a pro-Marketeer, having been so for the last five elections. Therefore, this idea that Members go back and there is no freedom for the electorate is wrong.
Surely the way in which the electorate in those constituencies would be best represented would be for the votes of their Members of Parliament to be in accordance with the views which they expressed under cross-examination to the electorate at the last election. That is why it was right for the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) to vote as he did in the 28th October vote and why it was right for the hon. Member for Banbury to vote as he did and why I have always pressed for a free vote on this issue on all sides.
The right hon. Gentleman claims to be in favour of a free vote, yet my small and silent voice was heard a great deal more loudly than his on this. Can he honestly say he assisted the freedom of the electors of Stechford by the way in which the right hon. Member for Stech-

ford was compelled to vote on the Second Reading on 17th February? Was that a proud day for parliamentary democracy when he was told that his first loyalty was to the Whips as opposed to his constituents? Does he have any doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would have wished to follow his conscience and vote on 17th February in precisely the same way as he did on 28th October? And then he says that we must have freedom for the electorate!
The first freedom that we can give the electorate is the freedom to allow their Members of Parliament to vote according to their consciences and according to the way in which they had said they would vote.

Mr. Orme: A "Please yourself democracy"?

Mr. Thorpe: Certainly. The Government must fight for their legislation; they must convince their supporters. Obviously, there are major issues on which a Government supporter is committed, such as the nationalisation or denationalisation of some basic industry. The electorate has the right to expect that a Member will vote according to his convictions. No one had any doubt at all how the most prominent anti-Marketeers in the Tory Party and the most prominent pro-Marketeers in the Labour Party were likely to vote. In my view, it has been a travesty of parliamentary democracy to compel them, to twist their arms, to vote against their consciences.

Sir David Renton: Would the right hon. Gentleman carry his argument one stage further and point out that it was common ground between all three parties contesting the last General Election which returned Members to the House that we would enter the Common Market as a matter of principle and that it was just a question of each Member deciding for himself whether the terms were right?

Mr. Thorpe: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope in a moment to quote from the Labour manifesto, which seems to have been strangely silent on the need for a referendum or a General Election.

Mr. Eric Deakins: The right hon. Gentleman is really


missing the point of my right hon. Friend's speech. What was the choice for an elector at the last election in a constituency where all the three candidates were in favour of their official party policy on the Common Market? What could the anti-Market electorate do?

Mr. Thorpe: The anti-Marketeer had a variety of things which he could have done. First, he could have done what certain selection committees have done and decided what type of candidate his party needed. [Interruption.] Certainly; it could have been an issue. Secondly, an anti-Common Market candidate could have been put up. It would be refreshing if hon. Members who complain about a lack of choice for the electorate between candidates of the same party in a constituency did not go on to defend the present electoral system which makes such a choice impossible.
In my view, a General Election on this issue under our present electoral system is a total impossibility. It is not possible to have a meaningful result unless every Labour candidate is told that he must follow the party line and be against entry.

Mr. Benn: What about a referendum?

Mr. Thorpe: I will come to that in a moment. I am dealing now with an election.
How would the right hon. Gentleman advise us if we wanted a meaningful General Election, the object of which was to find out what the people thought about Europe? How would a Labour voter, opposed to the present terms, vote in Stechford if he had to choose between the right hon. Member for Stechford and a Tory candidate who was bitterly opposed to it? How would he vote if he was a Labour man who was in favour of entry but lived in Stepney? Would he vote for the issue or for the label?

Mr. Benn: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to the speech which I made he would know that the Labour Party in my judgment—I can only give that as my view now, but I believe it to be the case—will put in its manifesto that a Labour Government would not enter Europe without a referendum. Therefore, in the election the voters would have a choice to vote Conservative or Liberal and to enter without further

ado or to vote Labour and to have reserved to them in a referendum the freedom to decide the matter for themselves. That is a total answer to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Thorpe: I am not certain whether this came up on 29th March in the Shadow Cabinet. If so, it is a new one. It is the newest departure we have seen yet. To change the view on a referendum within seven days is one thing but this one has been dreamed up—it almost spilled out of his speech as if it had come to the right hon. Gentleman in the bath this morning!

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman may know that I have advocated this view consistently. He will find that out by reading The Observer of November, 1970, when I made it clear that it was only in this way that the electorate could have a choice. Otherwise what he says in pouring contempt on a General Election would be absolutely valid. The right hon. Gentleman should do his homework.

Mr. Thorpe: This is a new and refined constitutional doctrine: "Have an election first on the Common Market, not to decide the Common Market but to decide whether the electorate wants us back, and then have a referendum to decide whether we are to enter." It would be a most interesting election campaign. I wonder what would happen to those Labour candidates who are against going into Europe and do not want a referendum, those who are in favour of going into Europe and do not want a referendum and those who do want a referendum and do not want to go into Europe? How does the unfortunate elector have a choice there? This is a continental-type system which even the Continent has not yet tried.
8.0 p.m.
In some parties there is a second ballot on the election of a deputy leader——

Mr. Orme: There are not enough members of some parties to do so.

Mr. Thorpe: I would not say that, nor is it necessarily easy for six men to represent 2 million people, as we have to do under the present system.
The Labour Party has made a civilised move towards greater freedom of choice in the election of a deputy leader of the


party by introducing the second ballot system so that a maverick candidate is declared defeated and if there is no clear majority the votes are redistributed in the same way as is done with the alternative vote in Australia. The Labour Party thinks that that system is too good for the electorate and is only for use among the èlite in Labour Party circles.
With a system like that we could have a meaningful General Election between Labour pro- and anti-Marketeers and Tory pro- and anti-Marketeers. The electorate could decide not only the volume of Conservative and Labour votes but whether their preference was for the pro-or anti-Marketeer candidates.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) said that he would resign to fight an election as the unofficial anti-Market candidate against an official pro-Marketeer, but only on condition that all the other parties stood down, otherwise it would not be meaningful. Unless all the Labour candidates were put into the straitjacket of taking the same line and saying "No" to Europe on Tory terms, it would be impossible to have a meaningful election.
Therefore, this is a totally irrelevant argument, and that is why the Labour Party in its manifesto made no reference to the need for a General Election. I ask the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale to tell me where such a reference appears, and I think he will confirm that it does not. The manifesto said:
We have applied for membership of the European Economic Community and negotiations are due to start in a few weeks' time. These will be pressed with determination with the purpose of joining an enlarged Community provided the British and essential Commonwealth interests can be safeguarded. This year, unlike 1961–63, Britain will be negotiating from a position of strength".
The manifesto goes on to say that, unlike the Conservatives, the Labour Government will not pay too high a price. There is no reference to the need for a General Election before a Labour Government could judge that the terms were right. It was always implicit that a Labour Government would decide whether the package was right, and. if it was, they would go in.
There were two legislative proposals in 1969 which involved referenda. The first was a Scottish Home Rule Bill of

14th February, 1969, moved by two of my colleagues. It provided for referenda in Scotland and Wales to decide the form of the constitutional arrangements. I voted in favour of that Bill. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East and the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) voted against it. The arguments of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) about the difficulty of posing the right questions were powerful, but they did not undermine my support for the referendum, and I have in a local government context suggested a referendum for part of my constituency. On 10th December, 1969, there was another reference to the need for a referendum on joining the Common Market. I voted against that, as did the right hon. Member for Stepney and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.
The case for a referendum in Scotland and Wales was a clear one, and I distinguish between that and the European issue. The question of Scottish and Welsh home rule has been largely ignored. That is one reason for the springing up of the nationalist movement. Home rule had not been in the forefront of politics and it was not a subject of public debate. A call for a referendum, rather like the Covenant earlier on in Scotland, was a way to compel attention to the question of Scottish home rule. The issue of Europe is not in the same category because it has been before the electorate. There was no controversy about it at the last General Election because the anti-Marketeers were a small minority of the House of Commons, or, if they were not, they were a very ineffective minority. They had every opportunity to make it an election issue.
Europe was made an election issue by the Leader of the Opposition in 1966 in his Bristol speech. It was perfectly open for the Leader of the Opposition, had he so wished, to have made it a major constitutional issue that, because the Tories had been prepared to accept value-added tax without necessarily getting into Europe, therefore a Labour Government must first have either a referendum or a General Election. But this never happened.
So the Labour Party falls back on a referendum. The Leader of the Opposition still finds it repugnant. For a long time he said that he would refuse to


trim. The Labour Party conference on Europe turned it down, and the Shadow Cabinet turned it down as recently as 22nd March and changed its mind on 29th March. Why have they changed their minds? First, because Mr. Pompidou is to have a referendum, and, secondly, because there is to be a plebiscite in Northern Ireland. It comes very strange from those who are first to defend the sovereignty of the House of Commons and who have a dislike of everything continental, particularly the French, to turn themselves into Mr. Pompidou's poodles.
The reason why a plebiscite is necessary in Northern Ireland is that the Unionists turn every election in Northern Ireland into a plebiscite on the border. They say to the electors, "If you do not want to end the border you must vote Unionist because any other party will end it." Therefore, there is no intelligent, political debate. A plebiscite in Northern Ireland is one way in which this matter can be deliberately taken out of politics, and I believe it is right.
I ask the Labour Opposition: why ask for a consultative referendum now? Why not ask for it before the vote on the terms, or, if not then, before the Second Reading debate? Why ask for it now after Parliament has voted on the principle and for the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Orme: Because we want a General Election; that is why.

Mr. Thorpe: No, the Labour Party has gone overboard for the referendum. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) must not detract from the enthusiasm that his right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East showed for the hon. Member for Banbury and all his works. The truth is that the Labour Party will do everything possible, with whatever allies it can find, to defeat the Government on the European issue, no matter how much the consciences of some of its members are battered and assaulted. I believe the right hon. Member for Stepney would link up with Beelzebub to get enough followers into the Lobby on this issue. That is why the Labour Party, which less than a month ago was opposed to a

referendum, now believes that unless we have one we shall see civil riots and disturbances in the streets. What hypocricy!What could do more to undermine the respect for this Parliament and its sovereignty about which members of the Labour Party talk so much?

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: It so happens that my release from office provides me with the first opportunity I have had to speak on the subject of Europe in 12 years in the House of Commons. It is well known that I am a lifelong supporter of our joining the Common Market, but it is a great pleasure for me to be able to say so publicly in the House for the first time.
The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) made a most devastating speech in destroying the speech of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South East (Mr. Benn). That right hon. Member's extraordinary speech was not to be expected when, to begin with, he warned us that he would be making a mild and unpretentious contribution to our debate. In view of the fact that the Labour Party is split almost exactly in two on the question of a referendum, the passion and novelty of his proposals astonished the Committee.
I could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman would be likely to believe that the will of Parliament should be allowed to prevail when he happened to agree with it, but that when the will of Parliament seemed to be contrary to what he would like he would call over the heads of Parliament for a referendum. He is not alone in his attitude in the House, because those who are now calling for a referendum are doing so because they are opposed to joining the Common Market and would certainly not be doing so if they were in favour.
There are strong reasons for saying that the whole concept of a referendum is false—reasons which have not been mentioned so far today. Whether the referendum is advisory or binding does not seem to be a major issue. If it is only advisory, presumably it will still have the effect of making the Government appreciate that they are unpopular only if there is an adverse reaction, and it should be calculated to steer the Government off that course.
What is important is whether there is a majority in the House that is prepared to govern. We cannot take one issue out of the whole range of policies, an issue like joining the Common Market, and say "We shall change the course of the Government on this issue, but for the rest we shall carry on." Our economic, industrial, trading, agricultural, social and monetary policies are all integrated into the Government's European policies. We cannot take out the centre-piece of a policy and say "Carry on with the rest, but do not join the European Communities."
I ask the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who is at the moment representing the Opposition on the Front Bench, whether the Labour Party, having won a General Election—if they ever do so—would then hold a referendum. I wonder whether they would then say "We do not know whether we want to join the Common Market; our policies are not fitted to joining the Common Market. We shall carry on with our economic policies whether or not we join, we shall wait for a year and then in a referendum we can take the verdict of the people on whether they want to join." Is this serious Labour Party policy? If it is, then it is absolute rubbish and nonsense and the whole country will see it as such.
Other extraneous items would no doubt be brought into that later referendum. It would include prices and incomes policy and industrial policy, and no doubt it would also bring in the question whether the unemployment figure was acceptable. All these issues are bound to come up in any referendum whenever it is held.
The only time when it is right to hold a referendum is the occasion on which the result does not matter in terms of the main policy of a Government whether they win or lose, whether the answer is for or against the proposition, whatever it may be. These are the serious issues that are usually left to a free vote in the House. The question of Sunday opening in Wales, capital punishment, or even vasectomy are reasonable matters to be decided on a referendum because they do not change the cornerstone of a Government's policy. But to put the most important and central plank of the Gov-

ernment's policy to a referendum and then to lose would have only one effect: it would mean that the majority could not continue to govern.
I would not continue to support a Government if it accepted an adverse verdict on Europe. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government have all said that they would resign if they were unable to carry the Bill. The only possible consequence, if there were an adverse verdict on a referendum on Europe, would be the resignation of the Government and a General Election would follow.
We should dismiss the idea of a referendum and concentrate on much the better of the two Amendments, the Amendment calling for a General Election.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Fell: Did my hon. Friend realise immediately before the 1970 General Election that the most important and central plank of Conservative policy was to be the question of Europe?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend must speak for himself, but in the four elections I have fought and won I made it clear that I would vote for entry into Europe, and on every occasion I was given the opportunity to do so.
There is another answer I should like to give my hon. Friend. Hon. Members have complained in this debate that all three parties were apparently in favour of our joining Europe although the voters who were against it had no opportunity to express their views. If that is the case, we must surely have a mandate. If all three parties were it favour it cannot be said that there was any doubt about the intention of the Conservative Party. If it were thought that the people should be consulted, it should be done by a General Election since this is the only true way to approach the matter.
I am surprised that the call for a General Election should arise on an Amendment to Clause 1 in the names of three Opposition Members not excluding the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman has become rather like the junior officer on whom his commanding officer wrote a confidential report containing the following sentence: "I


believe troops follow this officer only out of curiousity". The right hon. Gentleman expresses no view as to whether there should be a General Election at this time.
I wonder whether the Opposition would welcome a General Election at this time on the subject of Europe and with Europe playing a central part in it. How would they present the view of their party in terms of what they would do after a General Election? Are we to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East that their policy would be to hold a referendum a year after they were returned to office to see whether we should go into Europe? Is this the decisive leadership we are to expect from the Opposition? What an extraordinary position the Labour Party has got itself into on this subject.
It is not possible to solve these problems in terms of giving each voter an opportunity to vote for all the many combinations of different views about Europe. No candidate who stood either for or against Europe at the last election received more than a handful of votes. It was party that predominated over the European or other views of the candidates. To test the argument properly a General Election needs to be fought with a pro-Common Market Tory candidate, an anti-Market Tory candidate, a pro-Common Market Labour candidate and an anti-Common Market candidate. But these parties do not exist. I may malign the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). There may soon come to be a pro-Common Market Labour Party. But there is not an anti-Common Market Tory Party. Anyone can stand in the ensuing General Election under any colours, but it is a curious fact that candidates do not stand against established party candidates very often. When they do, they do not succeed.
I believe that there are plenty of democratic safeguards. What is important is that whenever the General Election comes, whether it is in response to this Amendment or three or four years hence, it will be fought again between the two major parties and it will be the interests of local, economic and industrial matters which will dominate, and not the Common Market.
It would be impossible to isolate the Common Market as an issue in any General Election. The voters would not be confined to that issue alone. A voter would say "I am not against joining the Market. But what about the taxes? What about the prices?" It is impossible to separate these matters. So we are back where we started. The last General Election was fought in exactly similar circumstances to those that the Opposition suggest should be fought now. It would be the same at any future General Election. There would be the same positions over Europe and the same positions between the parties about domestic and economic policies. I would take the same view. I would continue to vote for Europe whoever formed the Government in the future.
The whole suggestion is rubbish. There is no need for a General Election. I do not believe that the Opposition want one. A referendum would lead automatically to a General Election if it was lost. If it was won it would have no point. Therefore I suggest that both Amendments are mere devices to help once more to hold up progress on the Bill and to frustrate the will of those who have been elected to the House of Commons to proceed to join the European Communities.

Mr. David Clark: I hope the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) will forgive me if I do not take up his points immediately, although I shall deal with one or two of them later in my speech.
I have listened to most of the debate, and I have found it a rather strange and uneasy one. I feel that the opponents of the Amendment proposing a referendum have not attempted to answer the case which has been made in favour of it. In view of the pressure of time, I shall confine my remarks solely to this Amendment.
Those hon. Members who have tried to argue why there should not be a referendum have adopted a process of banter and comment. We have had very little hard factual information from them. We have had quotations dating back almost to time immemorial from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, and they have not been very apposite to this discussion.
What has concerned me most has been that the opponents of the proposed referendum have tried to defeat the idea by scorning and scoffing. Yet behind their remarks I have detected something of a hollow ring. I feel that the idea of a referendum has probably caused more worry to hon. Members than any other issue. I realise that the Chamber is not over-full at the moment. Even so, I suggest that there are more hon. Members present tonight than is normal at 8.30 in the evening.
I suggest that many hon. Members oppose the idea of a referendum not because of the phoney ideas and bogeys that they have put forward but because they are afraid that a referendum would be a direct challenge to their own prestige and rôle.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) summarised the arguments in favour and brought into the open the worries of many hon. Members who are against the proposal. Before answering some of their arguments, perhaps I might remark that I was surprised to hear what the Leader of the Liberal Party said—and I am sorry to have to say it when neither he nor any of his colleagues is present—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Liberals have been absent during the whole of the debates on this Bill? Their usual custom has been to come into the Chamber and to arrange to be called. As soon as they have spoken, out they have walked, and hon. Members have not seen them any more. That may be thought to be a reflection on the Chair. If it is, the point should be made.

Mr. Clark: I shall not take up my hon. Friend's point, because my time is limited and I want to comment on what the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said. I thought he was more concerned about what happened in the course of a free vote in this House than what might happen in a free vote in the country. This partly explains the demise of the Liberal Party. It has become extremely inward-looking. It is concerned about the trappings and workings of this House to the extent that it has forgotten what is happening to the people in the country.
I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he supported a Motion calling for a referendum in Scotland but that he would not support the idea of one in relation to the EEC I suggest that many of his followers who are aware of his opposition would very much like to express their own views on the Common Market.
In this debate, those in favour of a referendum are really fighting the Establishment. The Establishment likes a situation where there is an unwritten constitution. Its supporters are those who can break the conventions with impunity. They do so. In this case, they are again breaking the conventions of our unwritten constitution.
The accusation has been thrown at us that we are opportunists. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East has long argued that there should be a referendum on this issue. I have done so myself on many occasions stretching back over a number of months. Indeed, I tabled an Amendment to the Bill as soon as it was introduced. It is Amendment No. 166, and I tabled that long before the Amendment that we are discussing today was framed. There are many hon. Members who oppose the Market and who have been loyal to their principles.
I want to deal with the central part of the opposition to the ideas of a referendum. It was summarised very well by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, who argued that because the Bill embodies in spirit so much of the Government's industrial, economic and social policies it would be wrong to have a referendum on this issue since to vote against going into Europe would be to defeat so many of the Government's activities. However, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has not quite understood why we are arguing for a referendum on this issue.
We are arguing not because of all the multifarious activities of the Government in connection with the EEC, but for a referendum because entry into the EEC changes the basic structure and affects the basic sovereignty of the House of Commons. People have said "We have lost sovereignty time and again. Whenever we make a treaty we lose sovereignty." That is quite right. We do on many occasions, but never before


have we given the power to another body to make regulations and laws and to tax the people of this country. This is a unique occasion. We are completely altering the nature of our parliamentary system of democracy. This is absolutely vital.
We are here today because we represent the people in our constituencies. We are here with the knowledge that we can do or undo whatever has been done before in relation to the laws of this country, and our constituents know it. But how many of them know that when we enter the Common Market there will be regulations or decrees emanating from Brussels and that we shall have to say to them, "There is nothing we can do about this. Although we were your sovereign power, we have passed over some of that power to the people in Brussels and they can make laws, for example, relating to heavy goods vehicles. Although you elected us, we cannot do anything about it."

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

8.30 p.m.

That point has been made clearly and emphatically in the country. I can think of arguments why this Parliament should give up its power, but it seems basically immoral to take away the power from the people of this country without first asking their consent. That is the most crucial argument why there should be a referendum.

I hear it argued that this would be an occasion of parliamentary democracy. It is essential to our system of parliamentary democracy. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East was so right when he said that the Bill and the passing of power from this Parliament will cause further disenchantment in the country regarding politicians.

I will now deal with some of the arguments put forward by the opponents of a referendum. It is said that referenda are the instruments of demagogues and dictators. If so—the Prime Minister acknowledged that he subscribed to this particular view in Question Time last week—why does he want to join a society where almost all the countries use this means of consulting the people? It is just not logical.

We hear that if we introduce a referendum it will be applied to hanging and will hold back social advances. There have been referenda in Denmark and Norway. Those two countries have had the social advances which we have had.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my hon. Friend go one step further and point out that if we go into the Common Market and it is agreed that the referendum shall be held in the various countries of the then Ten, then, whether Parliament likes it or not and whether the people like it or not, we shall have to carry it out?

Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is quite right. The idea of the Common Market is that eventually there will be harmonisation of the various instruments of social services and, one contemplates, of Government.
The other objections are technical. It is often said that one cannot frame a referendum if one cannot frame the question. The same people then talk about opinion polls. I put this point to them. If we can frame the questions for opinion polls—we all use opinion polls to supplement our own particular arguments—surely we can do so for referenda. Are they saying that we cannot frame the question which can be framed by countries such as Italy, France, the various Parliaments of Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland and Norway, countries which will be part of the big Ten, all of which use the referendum? Is there something in the English language which does not make it suitable for referenda? I think that this is sheer poppycock and nothing else.
The three other applicant countries—Ireland under Article 46, Norway and Denmark—are all having referenda. Denmark does not need to have a mandatory referendum, but is having one. Norway is having an advisory referendum.
Is there not something wrong when the people of Ireland, Norway and Denmark have a right to determine their future and yet the leaders of this country are so arrogant that, while paying lip service to democracy, they are not prepared to put it to the test when it affects the vital interests of our people? It seems that if we have a referendum it might lead to a demand for it to be extended to other spheres. That should


be resisted. I have never made any bones about that. I spoke very clearly in my constituency on this matter. I believe in a referendum because this is a major constitutional issue.
Bagehot and all the constitutional lawyers say that before there is a basic change in the constitution there should be some form of convention, some form of consulting the people. This has happened as we have heard tonight, on previous occasions in 1910, when at two General Elections the proposal was made to limit the power of the other place. But since then the convention has disappeared, as so many other conventions have disappeared in relation to ministerial responsibility and a horde of other things. It is only natural that there should now come a time when we should seriously think about having a written constitution, in which constitution there should be a point relating to referenda when basic constitutional issues are affected.
But the most important point in our case for a referendum is that the Bill affects the basic rights of the British people. It affects their rights especially through the House of Commons. I wonder how many of them realise that they will be taxed from Brussels and will be subject to laws made in Brussels. I suspect that not very many of them realise that. If a referendum were held, this would be brought out very clearly. Then the British people could make their own decision about their future.

Mr. Powell: In this debate we have certainly fulfilled the injunction of the political correspondent of The Times that we should have a good laugh. But, as so often, the hilarity in which both sides of the House of Commons indulge has not been a sign that the subject under discussion was of light importance. Indeed, it is quite common that the House of Commons is most hilarious when it is conscious of discussing the most serious issues. I do not believe today has been an exception.
Those who first learned that these two Amendments were to be debated together——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman, innocently, of course, has made a mistake. He said "these two

Amendments". In fact, the Chairman selected six Amendments and promised to call the other four, but has not done so—although I have been present the whole time waiting to be called—for some unknown reason. I do not know why the Chairman has not called them

Mr. Powell: I apologise to the hon. Member. I am sorry if I offended his susceptibilities inadvertently. As the evening is still young, I am sure that the Committee will have the pleasure of hearing him speak on the Amendments in his name, which are being discussed together. I correct myself: I refer to the two Amendments which the Chair has selected for Division.
At first one was inclined to question that which may not be questioned, the wisdom of the Chair; for, after all, a referendum and a General Election as methods of ascertaining public opinion are not merely different but, in many respects, opposite. Yet upon reflection one realised that there is one subject which forms the basis of the debate and not two.
This debate is about consent. Consent is not simply one of the major questions touching upon Britain and the Community, and the passage of the European Communities Bill; it is the central question. Many, if not most, hon. Members—I noticed that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said this very frankly—if convinced that the people of this country were whole heartedly, firmly and soberly determined upon the course embodied in the Bill, would be duty bound to regard the question as decided, subject, of course, to the details of legislative enactment.
Now, the question of consent is not merely still an open one. It is a question which, in the view of many hon. Members, is an insuperable objection to the passage of the Bill and to the entry of Britain into the Community in the circumstances at present envisaged.
On this subject of the degree of consent which is requisite, of the degree of popular consent which is necessary, to authorise the House of Commons to do what it is doing, there is agreement, at any rate in the abstract; and in a debate of this sort one should regard points of agreement as being as precious as rare, and should seize hold of them. I repeat:


there has been no serious dispute about the nature of the consent which is necessary to validate this act. It is familiar to the House in the famous, oft-quoted and no doubt carefully considered words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that such an act required the full-hearted consent of the Parliaments and the peoples of the new entrant countries. In negative form, he put it in similar terms when he said—this was actually during the General Election—that
no Government could take the country into the Common Market if the majority of people were against it.
One might summarise that in the terms which the Conservative Party organisation used when it distributed my right hon. Friend's Paris speech in the first week of May, 1970. It said:
Mr. Heath made it clear that entry would be impossible unless it was supported by the British Parliament and people.
I shall come to the way in which that consent is to be ascertained; but may I for a moment dwell upon the reasons why the stipulation which was laid down by my right hon. Friend, and which has never been withdrawn, modified, denied or disputed, was self-evidently right? The reasons have been mentioned, or touched upon, many times already this afternoon, most recently by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark). They derive from the unique nature, the unique characteristics, of the Act which is before Parliament.
First, it is in intention, if not technically, irreversible. It is intended by those who advocate it, by those who wish this country to accede to the European Community, not merely to be permanent in its present form, but to lead on, in an ever-expanding manner, to an ever-increasing absorption of this country into the European Community so that a reversal would be increasingly impracticable and, indeed, unthinkable. In all the other actions which Parliament can take, in all the other measures which it can pass, there is the possibility, so far as legislation has any power at all, for a subsequent Parliament, at the behest of the electorate, as a result of the decision which the electorate takes at a General Election, to reverse, to wipe out what the preceding Parliament did—to wipe it out so far as it is a matter of law, of legislation and of Government policy at all. But when this House takes a

decision which, by its nature, is not subsequently capable of being reversed by the electorate, then the responsibility of this House to the electorate is of a special and, indeed, of a unique kind. That was one of the things which my right hon. Friend frankly recognised by the exceptional preconditions which he laid down.
8.45 p.m.
The other thing, of course, is not merely the irrevocability but the fundamental nature of the Bill. One of the gains which we have made during the proceedings so far upon this Bill is that no one is under any misapprehension as to the reality of the transfer of sovereignty which is involved. It has been repeated over and over again today that the House ceases to be the sole source or the supreme source of legislation or taxation, and that the ultimate instance of judgment over the citizens of this country ceases to be in all cases within this realm.
This House is entrusted by the electorate with sovereignty for the life of a Parliament; but, unless the opposite is expressly understood, stated and accepted, it is not entrusted with that sovereignty in order to transfer it. It is entrusted with it in order to use it, but to restore it intact to the electorate when a new House of Commons has to be brought into existence.
Those are the two reasons—the irrevocability and the fundamental nature of the Bill, the transfer of what belongs not to us but to the electorate—which justified, and indeed necessitated, those conditions of consent upon which, so far as I know, we are all agreed, but to which at any rate my right hon. Friends are irrevocably committed.
There is nothing else in our election programme of which we said this. Of none of the many other statements which we made, the other policies which we announced, the other commitments which we entered into, did we say that it would be impossible unless a majority of the people supported it. On nothing else did we say "This would be impossible without the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people".
Indeed, we would have been addled in our administration, we would have been in breach of the responsibility of Government, if we had said such a thing. A Government are elected to govern. There


are many circumstances in which, in the course of governing, they do, and openly do, things which are contrary to the wishes of the majority of the electorate. Only about this Bill did we solemnly assert that it presupposed the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people.
I will not be jealous with my right hon. Friend over that conjunction "and"—Parliament "and" people. Nor would I for a moment disagree with him when he went on to say in both those speeches—but I will quote what he said during the General Election on 2nd June—in his very next sentence, that this was a matter
to be handled through the parliamentary system.
Of course, that goes without saying. That is why there is a Bill before the House. In these matters, effect can be given to the will of the people—they can be "handled", to use one of my right hon. Friend's favourite words—only through Parliament. But that does not mean that Parliament is a substitution for the people and that a majority in Parliament can replace the full-hearted consent of the people.

Mr. John Hunt: Mr. John Hunt (Bromley) rose——

Mr. Powell: May I finish the sentence? Then I will gladly give way to my hon. Friend.
What was meant, and whatever now is meant, by the "full-hearted consent of Parliament and people" is that in this matter, though Parliament will act and only Parliament can act, Parliament cannot do so without the consciousness and the evidence of the full-hearted consent of those who sent us here.

Mr. Hunt: I was just wondering whether my right hon. Friend explained to his electors in Wolverhampton at the last election that this, in fact, implied a referendum.

Mr. Powell: If my hon. Friend will kindly accompany me in my argument he will find that I do not come to that conclusion at all. So perhaps he will bear with me while I invite the House to consider whether it can seriously be claimed that there is either—and now I substitute the disjunctive for the conjunctive—the full-hearted consent of Parliament or the full-hearted consent of the people.
Taking Parliament first and this House of Commons first [Interruption.] Of course I do not need someone to mention the 112 votes; so I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) and anyone else who mentions the magic figure 112: "On what other subject is a majority of 112 regarded as the full-hearted consent of Parliament—forget the people for the moment—which justifies a unique and irrevocable act?" There have been a great many measures carried in this House by a lot more than 112 votes. Nationalisation measures were carried by the Labour Party. Measures have been carried by Conservative Administrations. But in neither case has the House, let alone the Opposition, wiped its hands of the matter and said "There it is: the full-hearted consent of Parliament has been given." We all of us know what would be meant by the kind of consent of this House which would be regarded as full-hearted; and it is about as near as possible opposite to the scene which we have witnessed not only this afternoon but from the first time that this matter was brought to the floor of the House of Commons.
Of course, there is not so far a majority at all. We do not yet know whether there will be any consent of Parliament at all. The consent of Parliament will only be known if and when there is Royal Assent to this Bill. But nothing has so far happened, whether on 28th October or on any subsequent date, which can, except in terms of irony, be described as the full-hearted consent of this House. This House is deeply and passionately divided. It is the opposite of a House which is in full-hearted consent, and it is a House which in that respect, although not, I am sure, mathematically——

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I wonder whether, before he goes on to his next point, he would tell us exactly what would be full-hearted consent.

Mr. Powell: I have on a previous occasion said that I believe that there was full-hearted consent to the commencement or the resumption of negotiations in 1967. If my hon. Friend likes to use that as a sort of yardstick of an overwhelming majority, then I offer


it to him; but there is a very great contrast indeed between that position and that scene and the one which has been occupying us on the floor of this House on and off for the last nine months.
So I address myself next to the question of those out of doors who sent us here. Here and there those who are anxious to make a case that there is consent out of doors can find a figure in opinion polls or somewhere else which looks like some kind of majority; but what nobody has ever produced yet in any form, and what nobody has ever alleged, is that there is evidence of full-hearted consent out of doors; that there is that sober, sustained and deliberate will on the part of the people to surrender the sovereignty of the House of Commons and of the electorate, which is the condition precedent to the House having the right and authority to do so—and that upon the view of my right hon. Friends themselves.
That is what all these Amendments are about, and it is what the two Divisions which will take place are about. They both register in emphatic terms the absence of the necessary consent—the fact that the conditions laid down by the Government and the Prime Minister for the validity of the act have not been, and are not yet, fulfilled. They both do so in similar form by saying "This act must not be completed unless and until something happens". It is the "unlesses" and "untils" which differ and which, in some respects, are in contrast. One is "unless and until a referendum has been held"; the other is "unless and until a General Election has been held." But let us bear in mind, as we consider the Amendments and those two pieces of mechanics—they are barely even that—that the essential purpose of the Divisions and of this debate is to determine whether those conditions precedent, on which there is general, and indeed official, agreement, are fulfilled at all.
I take the Amendments in the reverse order and consider first the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and other of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It has perhaps not escaped notice that, closely and cordially though I agree and co-operate with them in this great parliamentary struggle, my name is not attached to the Amendment. I am no

friend of a referendum, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did me no injustice—I am sure he would never wittingly do me an injustice—when he quoted from a speech I made on the Common Market issue during the General Election in which I set out the reasons why I am no friend to the principle of a referendum. Would that he had given the same close study to the other parts of the little book in which that speech has been reprinted. He might otherwise have taken the better part in this whole question. But let that pass.
I regard a referendum as being difficult to reconcile, even on a matter of this unique character—there is a respect in which all questions can be regarded by somebody as unique—with responsible parliamentary government as we have it in this country. In saying that I place myself in no sort of antagonism or contradiction with those who have shown that good and worthy democracies, as good and worthy as our own, have the referendum either as an exceptional or as a usual part of their procedure. But the essence of our own responsible parliamentary democracy is that the Government are held totally responsible to the House of Commons, and the House is held totally responsible to the electorate.
If a referendum is held upon a matter of minor importance, that principle may not be seriously interfered with or breached. But if a referendum is held upon a subject in which otherwise the responsibility of government would be engaged, that responsibility is short-circuited. As I said in my speech at Tamworth, the Administration would then be entitled to confront a complaining electorate and say "It is no fault of ours. We would have acted differently, but the question was submitted to you and you decided it otherwise. So it is you, not we, who are responsible." That is the reverse route to the true flow of responsibility in our parliamentary system.
9.0 p.m.
I do not seriously think that this is helped greatly, though I appreciate the object of it, by my right hon. and hon. Friends designating a proposed referendum as consultative. I think that this would be difficult. Everybody would


want to know whether, although in form consultative, it was in reality binding. Indeed, I find a certain contradiction in saying, as we all do, I thought, that the general will of the people on this subject must be decisive and then, if we can ascertain it by way of a referendum, saying nevertheless that that is only consultative and that the Government are at liberty to disregard it.
So even on this uniquely important matter I would not myself, if it were a practical issue, favour the holding of a referendum. But the Committee understands these matters very well. The Committee understands what would be the consequence if Amendment No. 205 were carried. The Amendment says:
This Act shall come into force on a day to be appointed…but no such date shall be appointed until a consultative advisory referendum…has first been held…".
If—no!when—there are so many of my hon. Friends who either at the General Election or on 10th December, 1969, committed themselves to the principle of a referendum on this subject that I can say "when"—Amendment No. 205 is carried later tonight, nobody, not even the newest of hon. Members, supposes that on the following day the Government will scamper off to institute the machinery for a referendum to be taken, in order that in due course the Bill as an Act may be brought into effect.
Every hon. Member understands perfectly well what would be the result of the House of Commons marking by this Amendment the fact that there is not sufficient authority or consent in evidence at this moment. It would begin—it would have to begin—the process of bringing together what sooner or later must be brought together; for this thing cannot go through with a House of Commons and a nation torn apart. It would begin the process—a slow process, a gradual process—of bringing together ingredients which, to satisfy all of us and to bring about full-hearted consent, would have to be fed into any arrangement for Britain to co-operate with the nations of the adjacent Continent of Europe, with the European Community itself. That is what would happen.
Those who vote for the Amendment, as I shall tonight, are saying, whatever their views on a referendum may be,

"There is not here or in the country the necessary consent to the Bill passing in this form. Therefore, let something be done to ensure that in due course the forms, the arrangements, the negotiations are so altered that, if possible, full-hearted consent may be forthcoming."

An Hon. Member: It is impossible.

Mr. Powell: If it is impossible, so be it; but we cannot do it without full-hearted consent. We have said that we will not; and we register by our vote that the necessary consent is not present and not available.
I come now to what I believe is the much more proper constitutional form in which to envisage the consent of the electorate, Amendment No. 23. Many hon. Members have dilated upon the difficulty—it has sometimes been described as the impossibility—of using a General Election to give, in the words of the Amendment,
the express consent of the British people
We all think that we can draft other people's Amendments better than they can themselves, and I am tempted to think that I could have made perhaps a better shot at Amendment No. 23 than that which is on the Notice Paper. But there is not that absurdity or that difficulty which has been often asserted in this debate about obtaining the consent of the British people by way of a General Election. Without going into history, I summon a recent witness, the most important of all possible witnesses in this case—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is only a few weeks ago, within the recollection of every hon. and right hon. Member, when, in winding up the debate upon the Second Reading of the Bill my right hon. Friend told the House what would be the result, in the view of himself and his Cabinet colleagues, if the Second Reading were not carried.
Admittedly, when my right hon. Friend said that, he had good reason to suppose that it would be carried—but that is part of another story. I ask the House to attend to what my right hon. Friend said:
…if this House will not agree to the Second Reading of the Bill tonight…my colleagues and I are unanimous that in these circumstances this Parliament cannot sensibly continue".—[Official Report, 17th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 752.]


Why was my right hon. Friend going to advise Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament if the Second Reading were not carried? What did he suppose the General Election which would follow would be about? What were we intended to suppose the General Election would be about? What sort of House of Commons was intended to be sent back after the General Election? Everyone knows that the object was to secure, if possible, the consent of the people to this Bill and to the form of adherence to the treaty which is enshrined in the Bill. It cannot be disputed—my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury said it himself—that one can indeed test the consent of the British people by General Election.
Of course, my right hon. Friend was in the mainstream of British political history. He was doing—no, he was threatening to do—what Earl Grey did in almost precisely those circumstances in 1831. The election which then followed was as much about the Reform Bill—although in that election there only voted the electors and the constituencies of the unreformed House of Commons—as the election-which-never-was last month, the election which would have followed the defeat of the Second Reading of the Bill, would have been about entry into the Common Market.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would my right hon. Friend suppose I might be equally right if I thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he used those words, was saying to this party in particular that if it voted against entry into the Common Market there would be a General Election which could mean another Government which would also go into the Common Market but which would bring other things with it—in fact, a Socialist Government?

Mr. Powell: I recommend my hon. Friend to study very closely what my right hon. Friend, did, in fact, say, and to recognise that my right hon. Friend was acting in a manner entirely constitutional in saying that if the House refused consent the Government would not resign but would try to get a House of Commons which would give consent. That was what my right hon. Friend said, and that was what I believe he meant.
But I take up a point not very far removed from that which my hon.

Friend has put to me; for it is often said "Oh, yes, but then the outcome of a General Election would be confused by the ambiguous and in part conflicting positions of the respective parties". I do not believe that this is realistic either. I do not believe that anyone would have been in any doubt. If that election had happened, in order to see whether we could get a House of Commons that would pass the Bill, I do not believe that that problem would have arisen for the electorate. For had a labour majority been returned at an election fought in those circumstances on that issue, then I say that it would have been impossible for that party—I do not say, ever to make an arrangement with the European Economic Community—but I do say to carry through the House and the country entry upon these terms and upon these conditions.
That brings me to my last point, which is to establish that it cannot be claimed that at the last election, in 1970, the consent which would have been sought in an election fought in February or March of this year was asked for, or therefore was obtained. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—he warned me that he might not be here, but in his absence I say how much we on the back benches welcome his coming back to reinforce us and greet his return to a wider scope of debate—described membership of the Community as "a most important and central plank of the Government's policy". But that is not what we told the electorate. That is an ex post facto. What we told the electorate in the manifesto was:
…we can negotiate with the European Community, confident in the knowledge that we can stand on our own if the price is too high.
One can hardly describe as a most important and central plank of a policy presented to the electorate at a General Election something which is so disposable that one can do equally well, be just as well off, if by some mischance or some difficulty in the negotiations it does not happen at all.

Mr. David Crouch: Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury) indicated dissent.

Mr. Powell: I know that there are some, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who do


not agree with what we said in our manifesto, and my hon. Friend has told me so. In this, as in so many things, individual hon. Members have put a personal as well as a party point of view. But as a party that is what we said to the electorate. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that we presented to the electorate a policy of which, expressly and evidently, membership of the Community was a most important and central plank.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Marten: Does not my right hon. Friend also agree that this has been confirmed time and again since the General Election, when we have said to the country that we would not go in unless we got the right terms for New Zealand and for Commonwealth sugar? Did we not say that if we did get such terms for any one of these things we would not go in? Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as recently as the Conservative Party conference at Brighton last October, state the same thing about fishing? Have we not said, on all these three things, that if we did not get the right terms we would not go in? How central has this been since October?

Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend is filling in the details of the words in our manifesto, where we said that "if the price is too high"—meaning those things which he has mentioned—we could equally "stand on our own". How could the electorate suppose in these circumstances that it was giving its mandate, its consent, to a Government who were saying "This is central to our policy; take it or leave it as a whole, but the centre of it is membership of the Community"? That was not what we said. On the contrary, despite all the can dour about our intention to negotiate and our desire to succeed, we also inserted that all-important sentence, that oft quoted sentence:
Our sole commitment is to negotiate; no more, no less.
The sole purpose and meaning of that was to say "We are not asking you at this General Election for your agreement. We are not asking you, because you vote Conservative, to commit yourself to the Common Market, because we are not committing ourselves to more than that there will be negotiations." Some

individual candidates said "The party is not committed, but I am in favour." Others, like myself, said "The party is not committed, but I am opposed." But, whatever individual candidates said, it is undeniable that no mandate was sought and, therefore, no mandate was given.
The effect of this Amendment is not to cause a General Election tomorrow; it does not even say so, any more than Amendment No. 205 causes a referendum to be instituted tomorrow. The effect of Amendment No. 23, for which I shall vote for the same reason, is that it recalls the fact that there is not sufficient authority, there is not sufficient consent, there is not that kind of consent which officially has been said to be indispensable for the passage of the Bill. We owe it to our constituents, we owe it to the House of Commons itself, to place on record to night that that consent, that authority, is not in our hands. Each of the Amendments does it in its own way; and for each, for that reason, I shall record my vote.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: We have heard the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) explain that no member of the Government or of the Opposition Front Bench, whether for or against entry into the Common Market, can say that these Amendments could be supported by any hon. Member whatever his view might be on the question of the EEC. He has explained that the Conservative and Labour Parties have at all times said that it was not their intention to go into the Common Market on any terms. I except the Liberal Party because I think that it would sell anyone at any time on any terms. We know what happened to it in the General Election and we know how many Liberals were returned, although they are absent at present.
Neither the Labour Party nor the Conservative Party, nor any Member of either party to my knowledge or belief, said that they would go into the Common Market on any terms whatever. We know that the Tory Party said that it would go in if it had the full-hearted consent of Parliament and the people. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has shown that the Government have not got the full-hearted consent of


Parliament. When the Government signed the Treaty of Accession, Parliament did not know what it was because it had not seen it. One hon. Member spoke of a majority of 112, but he should have pointed out that the majority on the Bill was not 112 because hon. Members then knew what they were voting about. The majority of 112 was when they did not know what the prospectus was, when they had not seen the rules and regulations, the laws and edicts.
It took over 12 months of Parliamentary Questions to get the rules, regulations and orders published and presented to Members. They did not come then until after we had been asked to take the crucial vote. When I got this big pile of documents, almost three feet high, I saw a prominent member of the Cabinet and I said, "Mr. X, tell me, have you read these?" In non-parliamentary language he said "Have I hell. I have not seen any of them." Yet he and his Cabinet were dragooning the troops into voting for these 2,000 rules and regulations which neither he nor any Member of the House of Commons had seen.
Not only had the people not been made aware of the truth but hon. Members never knew at the crucial time what this meant. Even today rules and regulations are coming out from Brussels and there is no hon. Member who can see them. I read of a new directive stating that car insurance was to be harmonised. I do not know whether our motorists, who are experiencing such great difficulties at present, know about this. I do not know whether they are aware that in the Common Market the cost of insurance can be as much as 400 per cent. higher than here. Has the Prime Minister told his Bexley constituents that if we enter the Common Market their car insurance premiums will go up 400 per cent. and that no Member of Parliament can do anything about it? Has any hon. Member explained to his electorate about the 2,000 laws which we must pass without alteration? If he has, can he say that he has the full-hearted consent of the electorate? Of course he cannot.
The Prime Minister has said that we should have the full-hearted consent of the people, but how are we to get it if he cannot agree to a referendum or a General Election? The hon, and gallant

Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) said that he was not in favour of a referendum but that a plebiscite would be different. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). Having looked at the dictionary I cannot see any difference between a referendum and a plebiscite. Evidently the Prime Minister can because he has agreed to have periodical plebiscites in Northern Ireland. The Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister are at one on this. Both sides of the House agreed that there should be a plebiscite in Gibraltar. I cannot see why the Prime Minister should not agree to obtain the full-hearted consent of the people by a plebiscite.
My Amendment No. 254 is helpful to the Government. The Government say that a national referendum would be difficult and unusual, but I suggest that a plebiscite on the Common Market should be held in Northern Ireland. The Border question could be included as one question and the Common Market as another.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

9.30 p.m.

My Amendments Nos. 255 and 256 provide for plebiscites to be held in Wales and Scotland. Both parties have supported plebiscites on less important issues, such as the opening of licensed premises in Wales. Scotland has regular plebiscites of this sort, and I do not see why it cannot be asked to have a plebiscite so that we may see how far it goes.

I am interested to see the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) since he has performed yeoman service by publishing a very good book on the whole subject of referenda. If hon. Members have not read this volume, I recommend them to purchase it. In fact, I shall give the hon. Member a little free publicity by quoting a passage from page 187:
The political penalties for any Government which forces Great Britain into marriage with Europe against the wishes of a majority of the electorate will be severe. It would be understandable if the Government sought to avoid a genuine test of public opinion, but a policy of evading public opinion could easily lead to destruction at the next general election. A referendum then is not only the best test of public opinion. It also provides the best protection against political retribution.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right.

We hear from hon. Gentlemen on the Government side clamour for a referendum or vote among trade unionists, particularly this week in regard to the rail dispute. But since they have discovered that the railway workers might vote against what the Conservative Party feel to be right, they do not now want a referendum. Similarly, they do not want a referendum on the Common Market because they know what the result would be. This is why they do not want to have a General Election on this subject.

The real terms of entry to the Common Market were never put to the electorate by any political party or by any individual Member of Parliament. The terms of entry could not be put because they were not known. They have become known only in recent weeks and months. It is only as these matters have been debated that we are beginning to find what entry really means. The only way to resolve the issue is to seek the will of the people.

Let the Government beware on this issue. My local authority and many of my constituents say that they will refuse to carry out the provisions of the Housing Finance Bill, but they have been advised that that would be wrong because it will eventually be in the form of an Act of Parliament democratically passed by the House of Commons. They must wait until a Labour Government is returned to power so that it can then be repealed. In the meantime they must carry out its provisions.

I must tell the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, however, that if these proposals are forced through Parliament against the will of the people he should not think that the Government will get away with it. There could be strikes. There could be upheaval. I for one would tell my constituents that as these proposals have never been discussed and as we have been forced to accept 2,500 rules and regulations which we have not seen, they should not take notice, they should ignore this legislation because it is the antithesis of democracy. I would support them in every way, if need be to smash it by strikes and industrial unrest. Now I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins).

Mr. Deakins: My hon. Friend has passed the point at which I wanted to

interrupt. He spoke about local authorities not carrying out the provisions of the Housing Finance Bill. Surely that would not be undemocratic. Indeed the Government have foreseen that it may happen, and they have taken power to appoint housing commissioners where local authorities refuse to observe the provisions of the legislation.

Mr. Lewis: I take my hon. Friend's point. However, that Measure has been debated democratically. We knew what it was about and we had an opportunity to amend it. But we have had no chance to amend the 2,000-odd rules and regulations associated with Britain's entry into the Common Market. If and when we go into the Market we shall have no opportunity to alter any of these rules and regulations that the bureaucrats in Brussels have agreed.
According to rumours in the Press, it may be that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) will be one of the commissioners and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) will be our Ambassador in Paris. If that happens, they will have an opportunity to put their points of view. But neither Members of Parliament nor the British electorate will have any opportunity to amend regulations which have been agreed by the Commission and the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Rippon: I was a little interested in what the hon. Gentleman said just now. Parliament having passed legislation, does he think that strikes, industrial upheaval and violence are a form of parliamentary democracy?

Mr. Lewis: No, I do not. That is my point. I shall throw it back to the right hon. and learned Gentleman: does he think it is democratic of him to dish up 2,000 rules and regulations none of which any Member for Parliament has seen? Is it democratic to tell the people that they must accept them and that they cannot be amended? If he thinks that, and if he tells me and my constituents that we shall send a commissioner to Brussels where, with his colleagues, he will come to decisions which will be reported to Parliament but which Parliament will not be able to alter or reject, yes, I shall then tell my constituents that


this is not normal parliamentary procedure and that therefore I shall be prepared to lead them in industrial upheaval, if only to reassert the democratic decisions of the House of Commons.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I was grateful to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) for his free publicity for my book and for the praise that he lavished upon it. For a while, I thought I should find myself in general agreement with his remarks. I parted company with him, however, when he called for civil disturbance and upheaval. The hon. Gentleman is larger though not as pretty as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), but for a moment I thought he was going to outbid her revolutionary fervour.
At the same time I find it difficult to appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman on 28th October, that Members of Parliament did not really understand what they were voting on and that it was not until we saw the Bill and had some idea of the large numbers of orders coming from Brussels that we could form a picture of the constitutional restraints that entry into the Common Market will inevitably bring.
I think that on 28th October hon. Members had a very clear picture of what was involved in entry into the Common Market. It was plain then, as it is now, that a major change was going to come about in the constitutional framework in which Parliament and the electorate works. This is recognised by the other three applicant States. The Republic of Ireland, Denmark and Norway have decided to hold referenda. The Republic of Ireland and Denmark will hold referenda because their written constitutions force them to do so. That does not apply to Norway. We do not yet have a written constitution. However, we have a party political system which normally ensures that an alternative approach to all the great issues of the day is put before the electorate at a General Election.
It is curious that the Common Market issue has defeated the normal cut and thrust of party politics in this country. Let us look at the last four General Elections since the Common Market came into being. In 1959 the Liberals were alone in believing we should go

into the Common Market. The two principal parties believed that we should not. At the 1964 General Election, all parties believed that the French veto still lay on the table and that it was not a party political issue at all. At the 1966 General Election, it could have become an issue between the parties. When the Leader of the Opposition made his Bristol speech it seemed that it might become an issue, but again it did not.
In 1970 again it could not be an issue between the parties, because all three parties were agreed that if the terms were right we should go in. In Beckenham, apart from my heresy in believing that we ought to hold a referendum on this issue, I loyally supported the party line that we ought to enter if the terms were right. My Labour and Liberal opponents took exactly the same view.
Therefore, we have an issue of critical importance. It is a cliché to say that this was the most important single issue in British politics for a decade. Yet in my constituency and in hundreds of constituencies throughout the country it was not possible for a voter who believed this was the most important issue before the electorate to cast a meaningful vote upon it.
In the party political system there is normally a fail-safe mechanism to deal with any issue which is not thoroughly discussed at a General Election. That fail-safe mechanism is the fact that any decision taken by a Government can be reversed, if need be, by another Government following a General Election. We had a good example of that in the case of selective employment tax. The Labour Government did not choose to tell the electorate in the April, 1966, General Election that they had dreamed up that tax. It was launched on the electorate in the May, 1966, Budget. But the Conservative Opposition said that they were firmly opposed to the tax. The Labour Government had to justify it at a subsequent General Election. They did not succeed in doing so, and a Conservative Government have made a start in dismantling the tax.
9.45 p.m.
But that does not apply to the Common Market. Here again, this issue escapes the fail-safe mechanism. It is


technically possible for any Government, elected at a General Election following British entry, to take Britain out. But I do not believe that in practice that will occur. It would be possible to do a Bangladesh on the Common Market. But that would leave our allies and trading partners in a state of total confusion. Therefore, inevitably this is a decision which will be taken before one has a General Election in the normal course of events.
Some people argue that there should be an immediate General Election. The Leader of the Liberal Party dealt very effectively with that Amendment. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) have taken courageous and strong action in support of their beliefs on the European issue. But the fact is that they voted against Second Reading of the Bill to take us into the European Communities. Would the Conservative Party put up pro-Marketeers or anti-Marketeers to ensure a fair test of opinion in the constituencies of those right hon. Gentlemen? Would the Labour Party guarantee to put up a pro-Marketeer in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)?
I do not believe that it is possible, in practice, to have a General Election on a single issue. Even the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) would feel bound to mention unemployment and the cost of living in the course of an election campaign. I dare say I would feel bound to mention the dimensions of the Labour Party's internal divisions and its attitude to industrial unrest at present. So, in practice, a General Election is not a possible solution to our difficulties.
However, I take seriously the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West about a referendum not being an integral part of our parliamentary system of democracy. I take that argument seriously, even when it is advanced by those passionate advocates of entry into the Common Market who would bring about a far greater change in our system of parliamentary democracy than anything

contemplated in the Amendment concerning a referendum. I am encouraged by my researches which show that the referendum principle was supported by Mr. Arthur Balfour, Stanley Baldwin and Mr. Winston Churchill, all at a time when they were leaders of the Conservative Party. But all that is in the past.
I take even greater heart from the fact that the present leader of the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister, has said that there should be a plebiscite, or a referendum, call it what one will, in Northern Ireland. Here we have the most inflammable, the most explosive issue in politics, a constitutional issue of the first magnitude, and it is thought right to have a referendum of all the inhabitants of Northern Ireland on this issue; not just one referendum, but a continuing referendum so that they can clearly show their views on this all-important issue.
We have tramped through the Division Lobby in support of introducing referenda on the industrial scene. Indeed, for the last 48 hours the Government have devoted a substantial effort towards trying to persuade the trade unions to have a referendum on the railways dispute. If it is right to have areferendum on Northern Ireland, and if it is right for the railwaymen to have a referendum on the industrial dispute in their industry, it seems only right that the people should have an opportunity of giving their views direct on this most important of all issues.
I hope that the Government will change their mind this evening and accept the Amendment, because I do not want to vote against them on this issue. If they do not accept it, holding the view that I have held for the last two or three years I shall have no alternative but to go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.

Mr. Harold Lever: This has been an exceedingly interesting debate, and a dangerous one in many ways, because with the divisions on both sides of the House there must be a strong temptation on each side to stir it up between members of the divided party opposite. But in this House we tend to find, as I did when I was having my own dispute with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), that


one does not profit by seeking to intervene in the family quarrels on the other side, so I shall not stir up this matter.
I am not going to pose—because I should be absolutely dishonest if I did so—as being of the view that politics permit us, as Members of the House, to be justly divided into simon-pure sheep on the one hand and black and suspect goats on the other. I do not believe that the practice of politics permits that direct simplicity which is so much admired by everybody who has not practised politics. The truth of the matter is that if one does not want to be placed in the position of having two passionate convictions which conflict, two purposes which cannot be reconciled, one is better off out of politics. I am glad to say that this debate has not been marred as badly as some of these debates by a recitation of what A, B or C said on another day, and asking how he reconciles that with what he is saying tonight. A little light party fun may be derived from this, but little or no instruction.
If I quote what anyone has said, as I shall be bound to, it is not in any sense to reproach him for inconsistency, still less to cast doubt upon the sincerity with which he has come to his final judgment on how he should vote and how he should judge the great issue before us. I will quote only to the extent that it is directly relevant to questions which I propose to discuss with the House; namely—is this House competent to come to a decision, do we need a special Act, is there a mandate in this House to act upon this matter, or must we inevitably have a General Election or a referendum?
I declare at once, which will be no surprise to anyone, that I am opposed to the concept of a referendum, but that I favour a General Election. I will not go on too lengthily on this point, because it seems obvious to me that those who reject, as I do, the principle of the referendum and believe that it is hostile to the purposes of our parliamentary democracy, and not to be reconciled with the long-practised concepts of parliamentary sovereignty, that, in so far as it amends them, it amends them in a reactionary and retrogressive sense, must welcome a General Election which gives the people of this country the opportunity to remove this Government.
It has been said that such a General Election will not be a judgment upon the Common Market. Maybe it will not, but, as I am defending the parliamentary system in which I believe, I believe that no General Election picks out specific issues of fundamental importance. The whole essence of our parliamentary democracy, unaffected by referenda, is that the General Election expresses the will of the people upon all the issues which are then entrusted to the successful majority-supported Government in the House.
If the Government will not be able to pronounce on this subject, they will not be able to pronounce on another. That is not to say that the Government are necessarily compelled to oblige me by giving me a General Election, but, having the view I have, I will certainly do my best to bring one about by removing this Government.
Since we have been stating our points of view on this question, so far as the Market issue is concerned, if there is a General Election I shall make my position clear to my electorate. If my electorate choose to elect me, that will not alter the fact that the majority of my party will have gone into that election pledged to a very different position. I should have to accept and respect that, if the people elected a Labour Government, which had openly campaigned for a position different from my own, I would have to accept the verdict of the people because, however eccentric it may seem, I am a democrat, and a parliamentary democrat at that: I hope to die one as I have always lived one.
So I shall not be at all put out if the people of this country have a different opinion from mine. I am not all that put out that the majority of the members of my party have a difference of opinion with me. I regret it, because I would not be arguing in favour of my opinion if I were not myself convinced that it would be to the advantage of my party and to the public interest generally.
If, therefore, I have a criticism to make of my hon. Friend's arguments it is purely on the merits, and they will understand that it is not by any means a rejection of our general support for and agreement on all the great issues of the day. I was a little troubled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol.


South-East because he was guilty of what I call a Galileo fallacy. I have invented this——

It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

That the European Communities Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 273.

Division No. 127.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Iremonger, T. L.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Drayson, G. B.
James, David


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Dykes, Hugh
Jessel, Toby


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Eden, Sir John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Astor, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Atkins, Humphrey
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Awdry, Daniel
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Jopling, Michael


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Emery, Peter
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Eyre, Reginald
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Balniel, Lord
Fell, Anthony
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kershaw, Anthony


Batsford, Brian
Fidler, Michael
Kilfedder, James


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kimball, Marcus


Bell, Ronald
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kinsey, J. R.


Benyon, W.
Foster, Sir John
Kirk, Peter


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fowler, Norman
Kitson, Timothy


Biggs-Davison, John
Fox, Marcus
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Blaker, Peter
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Knox, David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fry, Peter
Lambton, Antony


Body, Richard
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lane, David


Boscawen, Robert
Gardner, Edward
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gibson-Watt, David
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bowden, Andrew
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Braine, Bernard
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bray, Ronald
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Goodhart, Philip
Longden, Gilbert


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodhew, Victor
Loveridge, John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gorst, John
Luce, R. N.


Bryan, Paul
Gower, Raymond
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
MacArthur, Ian


Buck, Antony
Gray, Hamish
McCrindle, R. A.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Green, Alan
McLaren, Martin


Burden, F. A.
Grieve, Percy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Grylls, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gummer, Selwyn
Maddan, Martin


Cary, Sir Robert
Gurden, Harold
Madel, David


Channon, Paul
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Chapman, Sydney
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marten, Neil


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mather, Carol


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Angus


Churchill, W. S.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mawby, Ray


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Clegg, Walter
Haselhurst, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cockeram, Eric
Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Cooke, Robert
Havers, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Coombs, Derek
Hay, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Cooper, A. E.
Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)


Cordle, John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Heseltine, Michael
Moate, Roger


Cormack, Patrick
Hicks, Robert
Molyneaux, James


Costain, A. P.
Higgins, Terence L.
Money, Ernle


Critchley, Julian
Hiley, Joseph
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Crouch, David
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Monro, Hector


Crowder, F. P.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Montgomery, Fergus


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Holland, Philip
More, Jasper


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Holt, Miss Mary
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Hordern, Peter
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Dean, Paul,
Hornby, Richard
Morrison, Charles


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Mudd, David


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Howell, David (Guildford)
Murton, Oscar


Dixon, Piers
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hunt, John
Neave, Airey




Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Rost, Peter
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Royle, Anthony
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Normanton, Tom
Russell, Sir Ronald
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Nott, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tilney, John


Onslow, Cranley
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Scott, Nicholas
Trew, Peter


Osborn, John
Scott-Hopkins, James
Tugendhat, Christopher


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Sharples, Richard
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Page, John (Harrow, W.)




Pardoe, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Parkinson, Cecil
Simeons, Charles
Waddington, David


Peel, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Percival, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Soref, Harold
Wall, Patrick


Pink, R. Bonner
Speed, Keith
Ward, Dame Irene


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Spence, John
Warren, Kenneth


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Sproat, Iain
Weatherill, Bernard


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stainton, Keith
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stanbrook, Ivor
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Steel, David
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Raison, Timothy
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Wiggin, Jerry


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Wilkinson, John


Redmond, Robert
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Winterton, Nicholas


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Stokes, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Stuattaford, Dr. Tom
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Sutcliffe, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Woodnutt, Mark


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)
Worsley, Marcus


Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Younger, Hn. George


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Tebbit, Norman



Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Temple, John M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Mr. Tim Fortescue.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Crawshaw, Richard
Freeson, Reginald


Albu, Austen
Cronin, John
Garrett, W. E.


Allaun, Frank, (Salford, E.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gilbert, Dr. John


Allen, Scholefield
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C


Armstrong, Ernest
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Gourlay, Harry


Ashley, Jack
Dalyell, Tam
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Ashton, Joe
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Atkinson, Norman
Davidson, Arthur
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Awdry, Daniel
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hamling, William


Baxter, William
Deakins, Eric
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Beaney, Alan
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hardy, Peter


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Delargy, H. J.
Harper, Joseph


Bennett James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dempsey, James
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Bishop, E. S.
Doig, Peter
Hattersley, Roy


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dormand, J. D.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Heffer, Eric S.


Booth, Albert
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hooson, Emlyn


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Driberg, Tom
Horam, John


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bradley, Tom
Dunn, James A.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Dunnett, Jack
Huckfield, Leslie


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ellis, Tom
Hunter, Adam


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
English, Michael
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Evans, Fred
Janner, Greville


Cant, R. B.
Ewing, Harry
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Carmichael, Neil
Faulds, Andrew
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
John, Brynmor


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Cohen, Stanley
Foley, Maurice
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Coleman, Donald
Foot, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Concannon, J. D.
Ford, Ben
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Conlan, Bernard
Forrester, John
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)







Judd, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sillars, James


Kaufman, Gerald
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Skinner, Dennis


Kelley, Richard
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Small, William


Kerr, Russell
Moyle, Roland
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Kinnock, Neil
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spearing, Nigel


Lambie, David
Murray, Ronald King
Spriggs, Leslie


Lamond, James
Oakes, Gordon
Stallard, A. W.


Latham, Arthur
Ogden, Eric
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Leadbitter, Ted
O'Halloran, Michael
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
O'Malley, Brian
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Leonard, Dick
Oram, Bert
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Orbach, Maurice
Strang, Gavin


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Orme, Stanley
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Oswald, Thomas
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lipton, Marcus
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)



Lomas, Kenneth
Padley, Walter
Swain, Thomas


Loughlin, Charles
Paget, R. T.
Taverne, Dick


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McCartney, Hugh
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


McCrindle, R. A.
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Tinn, James


McElhone, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie
Tomney, Frank


McGuire, Michael
Pentland, Norman
Torney, Tom


Mackenzie, Gregor
Perry, Ernest G.
Tuck, Raphael


Mackie, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Urwin, T. W.


Mackintosh, John P.
Prescott, John
Varley, Eric G.


Maclennan, Robert
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wainwright, Edwin


McManus, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


McMaster, Stanley
Probert, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wallace, George


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Watkins, David


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Weitzman, David


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Richard, Ivor
Wellbeloved, James


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Marquand, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Whitehead, Phillip


Marsden, F.
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Whitlock, William


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roper, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mayhew, Christopher
Rose, Paul B.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Meacher, Michael
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rowlands, Edward
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mendelson, John
Sandelson, Neville
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mikardo, Ian
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Millan, Bruce
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Woof, Robert


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)



Milne, Edward
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Mr. John Golding and


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Mr. Tom Pendry.

Question accordingly agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Harold Lever: I must first apologise to my right hon. Friend for leaving him so long and inadvertently in suspended sentence. The Galileo philosophy is the consolation of all unsuccessful evangelists and it runs thus: When Galileo affirmed that the world went round the sun everybody told him he was talking nonsense. But who proved right? Galileo. So if ever a person is accused of talking nonsense he can always fortify himself with the reflection that

others who have been wrong in the past have proved to be right later.
On the question of the referendum and the special act of consent, when my right hon. Friend quotes to us all those great authorities in the past who have wrung their hands at what are now regarded as great constitutional reforms, he consoles himself and says that at every move forward of the franchise someone said it was awful, shocking and would undermine the constitution. He is quite right; but that must not be used as a cover to justify saying, whenever anyone claims that a change of the constitution is bad, that previous changes that were thought bad are proved to be good. The case must be proved on its merits, and I propose to examine the merits of the question we are discussing.
I will deal first with the relevant questions that it seems to me must be asked. Do we need a special act of consent to enable the Bill to be legislated in a way


which does not outrage the consent of the people, which is necessary really to support any legislation in this House? I would like a General Election, but Parliament has been made aware that this issue will come before the House. I must leave it to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) to analyse, as if it were a holy text, the speech by the Prime Minister and the hierarchical texts of the Conservative Party—namely, their manifestoes and the like. That is a matter for them. I do not attach this supreme importance to every leader word of the Prime Minister as do some hon. Members on the Government side. I will comment about what the Prime Minister said and what was put out. That is another matter. The attempt to construe the Prime Minister, as if his words created the British constitution, when we have to ask ourselves what it means when he talks about the consent of Parliament and the peoples of this country is not a matter which concerns me. My concern is to judge whether the people, quite apart from what the Prime Minister has said, were seized of this matter.
One thing is clear to me. My constituents, and I think the constituents of most of my hon. Friends, were perfectly well aware that we regarded it as within the competence of Parliament if we were elected to pass this sort of Bill—not this Bill but a very much better-designed Bill—to achieve entry into Europe.

Mr. Will Griffiths: My right hon. Friend will be aware that his own constituency Labour Party was wholly opposed to entry into the Common Market.

Mr. Lever: I am talking about what happened at the last election. Textual analysis of the Prime Minister's speech does not help me on this question. My electorate knew that we said this would come within the competence of Parliament. It does not mean that we must approve the Bill in this form, but the competence to decide the terms and legislation on the treaty was, to the knowledge of the electorate, assigned to Parliament. I shall have a good deal to say about that. It has nothing to do with the views of my constituency party on this point. As far as I know, they are critical of entry into the Market. That is a separate question.
The point I must make, from which I have been diverted, is that while I do not take my judgment of whether Parliament is or is not competent to pronounce upon the treaty and legislation necessary for taking us into the EEC from any other right hon. Gentleman, I take leave to say that no right hon. Gentleman, least of all the Prime Minister, is entitled to criticise any of my right hon. or hon. Friends for what they said at the election, because what he said was ambiguous. It was not accidentally ambiguous; it was deliberately and calculatedly so.
It is a very sad thing that the Leader of the Opposition as he then was, and the Prime Minister as he now is, entered into power in the House of Commons on this very important question with what are called in the Civil Service "weasel words". I am not to be held to say that the Prime Minister is a weasel, but I cannot help availing myself of the very convenient Civil Service phrase, which is carefully drawn to mean one thing to one man and something else to another and to be defensible as having a third meaning if challenged later on.
It is a great pity that the Prime Minister did not say straight out, as did my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—he may have applied a different rule in the changing circumstances—[Laughter]—it is all very well laughing. I know how I would choose between a man who spoke his mind in unmistakable language, as did my right hon. Friend, at a General Election, and who at least made plain what he was saying, or somebody who engaged in double talk at election time—[Interruption.]—double talk intended to deceive, as opposed to candour that was in no way intended to deceive, because my right hon. Friend says now that if we had been elected and had got the right terms we should not have wanted a referendum.
However, I conclude, first, that this is within the competence of Parliament. The question is whether Parliament should proceed in this way without some form of special action to render effective and satisfactory this very important legislation.
The key question, put very fairly by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, was "Is it irreversible?" The right hon. Gentleman is a very skilful advocate of his cause. He said that it is


the intention at any rate that it should be irreversible. Then, having carefully reserved the truth, which is that it can be reversed, as some of my hon. Friends would very much want, having carefully put himself right on the record, he proceeded to argue his case not as if it were merely a desire or wish that it should be irreversible but as if it were in fact irreversible. That is absolutely wrong, and it is the mistake my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) makes. He takes the Government's intentions as being binding upon Parliament, and that argument cannot be sustained.

Mr. English: Will not my right hon. Friend accept that it is irreversible in international and Community law, and that, once we are in the Community, Community law will be superior to English law? In other words, it is irreversible in law. Will he accept that any State which still maintains control of its army can break the law if it wishes, but would he regard that as moral?

Mr. Lever: If my hon. Friend will wait, I will cover that point completely. The question is whether the Bill is in any sense irrevocable in the sense that it is handing over, as has been alleged by both the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney part or all of parliamentary sovereignty so that the sovereignty of the next Parliament is reduced. The answer to that question is, of course not. It does not matter what anyone's intentions are or whether one thinks that it will offend Community law or any other kind of law; it will not in English law reduce the sovereignty of Parliament. I will come to the point about the referendum, when I will show that, unlike the Bill, it would reduce the sovereignty of Parliament.
Wherein lies the sovereignty of Parliament? It is that it can declare anything it likes, irrespective of whatever any other Parliament has enacted, and that is binding and must be excuted by the courts of the country.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South) rose——

Mr. Lever: I cannot keep giving way. I want to put my points.
The sovereignty of Parliament will not be reduced if the Bill is passed precisely because the next Parliament will be entirely free to reverse it. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members to listen to the argument. I am putting it sincerely.
I find it impossible to see how my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney can get up and say, first, what a vile and terrible Bill this is, bringing about permanent and irrevocable loss of sovereignty by taking us into the Common Market, and then say "As soon as we are back in power we will go to the Community and tell it our terms for remaining in the Common Market". That is not the talk of men about to be enslaved but, rightly, the talk of free men who will be as free as we are today to decide what has to be done.
I do not want to keep on creating fallacies. But there is here something of an anticipatory fallacy. We look at something people are doing, draw dreadful conclusions about how it will escalate in horror, firmness and rigidity and then say "All our liberties are gone; therefore we have lost our sovereignty. If this Bill is passed, because it is designed to take away our sovereignty, the social contract is broken and none of us is obliged to observe the law".
The Tories, it is argued, are passing an Act we do not want, but the price we pay for preserving parliamentary democracy is that we have to obey Acts which we do not like, coming from the Conservative Party when it is in Government; and the price the Conservatives have to pay is that they have to lump our Acts of Parliament. I tell my hon. Friends—not too loudly—that ours is the more agreeable task. I do not mean that as a compliment to hon. Members opposite. Because they are a reactionary and out-of-date group, they suffer far more in their subjective folly from our progressive measures towards Socialism than we can suffer from their mental recidivism, which is kept within limits by our sturdy trade union movement and the democratic power of our people.

10.30 p.m.

That does not end the case because even if, as I hope I have demonstrated, the bogey man of the permanent loss of sovereignty and the irreversibility of this has been disposed of by the intended election programme of my party, which is to


control the matter in exactly the way it wants, there remains the question: Is there such a temporary abdication which even before the next election will mean that this country will have imposed on it conscription or the destruction of some of its major interests by faceless, presumably not maliciously armed, bureaucrats as in Brussels?

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in finding very unsatisfactory aspects about the way in which we are compelled to debate this Bill, and in the drafting of it. I cannot see why membership of Europe need have us bound by an antiquated rule of the House—if it is a rule of the House, and we must accept that it is because the Chair has so ruled. I cannot see why we cannot debate every Clause of the treaty by Amendment, why we cannot debate every Clause of future treaties by Amendment. The Government were foolish not to give in to the reasonable demand for safeguards. They will not save themselves any parliamentary time—Governments never do by these devices.

I will back my hon. and right hon. Friends to the hilt in fighting for the maximum safeguards to alert and inform the Committee so that it will scrutinise searchingly all the legislation that comes before us.

Mr. Skinner: My right hon. Friend has not helped much yet.

Mr. Lever: Perhaps my hon. Friend will consult with me in the Whips' Office on this interesting but not directly relevant question. I assure him that I will vote with my hon. Friends and speak with them and fight with them for every possible safeguard to assist the House of Commons in the exercise of its continuing sovereignty. It is insisted that these dreadful things might happen such as the imposition of conscription. Does anyone really think that parliamentary sovereignty is abdicated by this Bill so that we would not react, if one Minister were mad enough—and the Europeans were mad enough to conspire with him to do it—to enact conscription without getting proper legislation in this Parliament? We would soon find out whether parliamentary sovereignty was still in existence as a great steel-tipped parliamentary boot was put behind the backside of the Minis-

ter who had the effrontery to do this, the entire Government and, if necessary, the entire Parliament! That is what would happen if such an outrage were committed.
If we are subject to some temporary loss of sovereignty because we are forced to debate these matters in an unsatisfactory way this should not lead anyone to dangle great bogeymen in this way. I assure my hon. and right hon. Friends that my honest and deep conviction is that parliamentary sovereignty remains absolutely intact, not merely from now to the General Election but thereafter.
The test is a simple one, and I am not being flippant in giving it. Whatever this House enacts the courts are obliged to enforce it. If the House were foolish enough to enact in proper form that I should be deemed to be Miss Brigitte Bardot, then for all legal purposes I would be female, French and considerably more attractive than I am. [Laughter.] I am not inviting any hon. Members to treat me as the equivalent: they will have to restrain themselves because the reality will remain me; it will only be for the purposes of legal proceedings and insofar as it is relevant to those proceedings that my French nationality, my female sex and my beautiful form will exist. That kind of total sovereignty will remain with Parliament.
The other thing that confuses a great many hon. Members is that it is said that this is a constitutional change of a kind that must be preceded by some sort of referendum or election. The kind of constitutional change which must by convention, not by law, be preceded by an election or a referendum is a constitutional change which alters the way in which we elect Parliament or the way in which Parliament exercises its powers within Parliament itself, such as the power of the other place or the way in which people vote. It is not the Bill which creates the bogeymen possibility, but the total sovereignty of Parliament itself.
If my previous example was not unattractive enough, I can give another one. Parliament could pass an Act which provided that at the next General Election everyone had one vote for each pound he had in his current account at the bank. [Laughter.] In some areas this would have entirely beneficial conse-


quences. No one could believe that a Government that did that could survive or could have the consent of the people to any legislation because the reversibility of the Act had been tampered with by the Government altering the electoral machinery.
No such constitutional change is effected here. The electorate will be the same, they will be voting under the same rules, and if they elect my right hon. Friends on this question my right hon. Friends have said what they will do about it. So the case for a special Act of Parliament with or without a referendum is not made out.
Although there are no good reasons for a referendum, there are some excellent reasons against it. We come to the third fallacy, that of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). It is extraordinary how a man can so misuse his intelligence, learning and desire to be honest as he has done tonight. He said calmly that the referendum is not alien to the British parliamentary system. It does not mean it is wrong or that it would not be a great improvement of the parliamentary system. That it is alien to our parliamentary system is absolutely unchallengeable. The fact that people have challenged it at one time or another as silly, dangerous and reactionary does not mean that it is part of our parliamentary system. It is alien to our parliamentary system. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a reason for denying it is alien. Not everything foreign is bad. One hon. Member who is strongly pro-European spat out the word "Continental" as though he resented everyone who is not a British citizen. We have to be careful. We have such a complicated system of checks and balances that we must be sure before we introduce alien bodies such as referenda that they are valuable and useful.
Those who support the idea say that a referendum would not be damaging to our constitution, but they always conclude by saying that they are conscious that it is alien and damaging but, if it is alien and damaging, it is not as alien and damaging as joining the EEC. That should be a good argument against enter-

ing the EEC, but it is not a good argument for a referendum, which is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman argues.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: If it be alien to the practices of this country, as the right hon. Gentleman erroneously suggests, how does he explain and justify his own conduct as a Member of this House in legislating for those countries for which this Parliament has responsibility?

Mr. Lever: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must think I am in a childish condition by this hour of night if he presents me with such a silly question. He is a lawyer and knows exactly what I said. I said that it is alien to the British constitution. He asks how I justify these other things. We had a good and liberal constitution when we were handing out worse things than referenda in areas which were dependent on us. We at one time caned and flogged people who preached sedition. That does not alter the fact that certain matters are alien to the British rule of law and the constitution. It is to our shame if we have misapplied a constitutional principle.
I am opposed to the referendum being injected into the most mature parliamentary system in the world, the British parliamentary system. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the system is not alien to us, he knows I am talking of our own parliamentary system, not about the system in Zambia or the Canary Islands. [An Hon. Member: "They are inferior."] No, they are not inferior. They have different constitutional arrangements; they are at different stages of economic and political development. [Interruption.] I resent anybody saying to people who hold my view that I am elitist because I wish to defend what I believe to be the most democratic parliamentary constitution in the world. There is nothing elitist in that. [Interruption.] I hope that my hon. Friend does not believe that it involves contempt for my constituents, because he ought to know better if he really means that. Contempt for constituents lies in disregarding their opinions without understanding them, in not having any respect for what they believe. It is false if this charge is being levelled at me. I have a deep and affectionate bond with my


constituency and with my constituency party——

Mr. Will Griffiths: Mr. Will Griffiths rose——

Mr. Lever: I have almost finished and do not want to give way now so late in my remarks.
The sovereignty of Parliament depends on the fact that no one law has a higher rank than another. It is that alone that gives to an incoming Parliament total sovereignty over the country's affairs. [Interruption.] Of course one can tear up the Rome Treaty in the next Parliament if one wishes to do so, but if we have a constitution which has embodied within it a referendum, then that is a quite different matter. [Interruption.] I do not happen to be a Conservative. I happen to be a man who is anxious to transform our society. Hon. Gentlemen have a fund of self-righteousness which leads them to believe that they are necessarily superior in good intentions than are some of their colleagues. They are quite mistaken.
I do not criticise any country which embodies within its constitution the referendum principle, but we must remember that this may involve a mechanism which will affect the actions of a future Government. It may sound agreeable for us to impose a referendum, but let us not forget what it does to a Government's successor. It will mean a diminution of parliamentary sovereignty. If there were a referendum to give sanction to this measure, any Conservative in future would be entitled to say "This Act has the sanction of the will of the people, a sanction which has been directly expressed. It can only be repealed by a second referendum". We should have fallen into the trap which the British constitution has always avoided and which all liberal, radical and progressive thinkers have fought against like the plague. Because what looks like the present gripping the present, historically speaking is always the past gripping the future. The next Labour Government will be as free as air, but not if legislation is supported by a referendum.
10.45 p.m.
The reason why I am so concerned on this question of a referendum is that I believe it is a derogation from the power of Parliament and a derogation of the

responsibility of Government and Parliament. I will not enlarge on that.
I believe that we enjoy a system of parliamentary democracy in this country which should be especially precious to hon. Members on this side who within a lifetime have watched how under it we can have accepted meekly and as law the most radical reforms required by our people. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is living proof that the most militant, sincere and courageous Socialist can occupy a position of power and influence in our Parliament. It would be no regret to me if he had more. How is that possible? It is because Parliament is sovereign and because we do not have special rank in laws. Each new Parliament as it enacts, pleasant and unpleasant, is accepted by everyone.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East on what Parliament is about. It is a secret ballot. It is freedom of speech and our careful complex of parliamentary institutions. With that complex as we now enjoy it, so surely as the Crown tamed the barons and others by the unique possession of gunpowder, so surely as this House tamed economic power, we have it in our capacity to enact what is required democratically for this country.
The problem is not the economic barons. The democratic process is difficult, painful and slow. It costs something to get things done decently and in freedom. It costs something to advance the nation in decency and freedom. It costs a little time and patience. But is not it sweet when we have got it, and is not it great to know that we operate in this country a parliamentary system which is free to attain in triumph the highest, the noblest and the most altruistic ideals of the people and to have them accepted by other people without the blood, misery and corpses as the price which has to be paid in other countries?
I warn my right hon. and hon. Friends not to support the Amendment calling for a referendum. I will gladly go with them in support of the Amendment calling for a General Election. I will gladly do anything to fight this Government at a General Election, even though I happen to be in agreement in principle about the Common Market——

Mr. Orme: Not to defeat them.

Mr. Lever: We did not go into the Division Lobby to defeat them on the Northern Ireland Bill, when we should have had better justification. For my part, I would have preferred to have found some factitious reason for defeating the Government on the Northern Ireland Bill than to have given my support to this Amendment calling for a referendum.
If I believed as my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that this Bill was likely

to have the evil consequences to the sovereignty of our country that they fear, there is no step that I would not take in desperation to prevent that outrage on the constitution. But I could not support a proposal for a referendum because I do not make those assumptions.
I am sorry to have detained the Committee for so long. But I had a few points to make.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The speech to which the Committee has just listened has, I am sure, given pleasure to all who heard it—[Interruption.]—pleasure certainly for its sincerity and integrity, though some hon. Members, for different reasons, may not have agreed with it, and pleasure because it gave us a little insight into some of the secret dreams of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever).
It was touching to hear the right hon. Gentleman's touching faith in the majesty of the law. However, it is my sad conviction that the law is more likely to have success in transforming his electoral potency, in the way that he described, than in enhancing his pulchritude in the way he hoped.
The issues covered by the right hon. Gentleman reveal the different strands of the argument running through the debate. In many ways it has been a confusing debate, but three arguments have flowed across each other. The first is the argument on which we have already spent so much time: are we or are we not to go into Europe on the terms negotiated? Secondly, as a different argument, are we to have a General Election forced upon us partly because of differences over Europe, and much more in terms of a General Election, because the Opposition disagree with the policies of the Government? Thirdly, can a referendum possibly be justified in the context of this or any other Bill?
On the much debated issue of whether we go into Europe, I do not propose to waste any time at this stage of the evening.
The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has today made basically the same speech on the same issue as in many previous debates. He continued to astonish us that he found it possible to remain a member of the Government which launched the present application. However, his speech was disposed of and dismissed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) when he told us that they knew full well the constitutional implications of that application when it was made, that it was upon that basis that the

application was made and supported last October and that it would have been even more generously supported in the context of a free vote.
I turn now to the Amendment in favour of a General Election which was approached in different ways by hon. Members on both sides. From one point of view—this is the view which commends itself to some hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side—the call for a General Election is a familiar and transparent device. It is the standard cry of Oppositions on all Government policies with which they disagree. It was in that way that the right hon. Member for Dundee, East tended to see it. Certainly it was upon that basis that he dismissed the pretentious constitutional nonsense, as he put it, advanced by his right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney. If that is the object of the General Election Amendment, if it is merely another attempt to force an election on an issue between the two parties, it is right to dismiss the Amendment on that basis.
However, I take in a different spirit the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who sees the call for a General Election in the context of this debate as a more fundamental issue. He makes his call for a General Election upon the basis that we have not got the mandate, the authority or the consent with which to proceed with this legislation. He founds himself in part upon the Tory Party's manifesto and upon the words, so often analysed, of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
The relevant passage from our manifesto has been read and reread time and time again, but I invite the Committee to look at it in the context that at the last General Election the country was facing an application to join the European Communities already made after due deliberation by the previous Government, supported over 10 years by the Liberal Party and supported in principle, as the country must have well known, by the Conservative Party. There was no room for doubt that each of the three parties was applying for Europe basically upon the same premise. When we said that our sole commitment was to negotiate, no more, no less, we were saying no more and no less than every


other party. That was well known and had been well known to the people of this country for many years.
No one could commit himself in advance of the outcome of the negotiations. That is why our election manifesto made plain that
As the negotiations proceed we will report regularly through Parliament to the country. A Conservative Government would not be prepared to recommend to Parliament, nor would Members of Parliament approve a settlement which was unequal or unfair.
It was there plainly for all to see, as no one really doubted, that the question whether or not we acceded to Europe at the conclusion of the negotiations was a question on which the decision would be taken by the House of Commons, exercising its rights and duties on behalf of the people of this country.

Mr. Ronald Bell: If that is so, and if we were saying no more, no less than the other parties, how could anyone who thought that the ultimate decision should not be taken by the House of Commons give expression to that view electorally?

The Solicitor-General: There were some places, as my hon. and learned Friend knows, where that option was specifically left open to the people. I do not know whether that was a point placed before the electors in my hon. and learned Friend's constituency. There were certainly occasions, as there have been since, when people campaigned on the issue of the Common Market in one form or another. For example, in the Greenwich by-election and the Maccles-field by-election they received only derisory votes, because the decisions were taken between the two or three main candidates.
It is on the same footing that my right hon. Friend's statement about
the full-hearted consent of the Parliaments and peoples of the new member countries
has to be understood and has always been understood. Anyone reading reports of that statement by my right hon. Friend will know full well that, for this country, he was talking about a decision in Parliament and only in Parliament, in accordance with our traditions. He made it perfectly clear earlier in that speech when he said:
Whatever the Government in power in Britain I do not myself believe that Parliament

will approve a settlement which in the opinion of its members is unequal and unfair.
My right hon. Friend made it doubly clear in his BBC broadcast on 27th May when he said:
We will report the whole time to the country through Parliament what is going on in the negotiations; at the end when they see what has been negotiated, Parliament can judge completely as to whether it is in the interests of the country to go into the Common Market or not.
My right hon. Friend made it trebly clear in his televised Press conference on 2nd June when he concluded his answer to a question by saying:
This is handled through the Parliamentary system.

Mr. Marten: That we all accept; that was put out by Conservative Central Office. But so was the document about the Paris speech on "full-hearted consent". If, as my hon. and learned Friend says, my right hon. Friend was referring to Parliament, why did he mention the people?

The Solicitor-General: Because, as I have explained, and as my right hon. Friend has explained many times, the views of the people would be transmitted to Parliament. [Interruption.] Indeed, as my hon. Friend knows equally well, when my right hon. Friend outlined the programme for the consideration of this legislation last June, he outlined step by step the process which would be followed. That process, not involving any referendum or further reference of that kind, was welcomed, I think, three or four times by the Leader of the Opposition, and welcomed by my hon. Friends, even those who disagreed with the proposal for entry into Europe. But there was no suggestion then that the procedure, the customary one, was unacceptable.
I conclude, and the House is entitled to conclude, along the lines of the analysis of the right hon. Member for Cheetham, that it is certainly not above the competence of this Parliament. Parliament is considering and has been considering these proposals and has registered its approval. But for other constraints, whether of party or for other reasons or on account of other tensions, parliamentary approval at this stage would have been even larger than it has been so far.
It is upon that basis that the will of the people is being expressed in relation to this legislation. How can one argue—and this has been done by hon. Members on both sides—that that situation could be helped, resolved or furthered in any way by a General Election? How can the discussion in a General Election be confined to this one issue?

11.0 p.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) made the point. How could a decision in such a General Election even be meaningful on this issue, quite aside from the question of what the posture of the Opposition or Members of the Opposition might be? I do not want to dwell on that now but, apart from these difficulties, how could a General Election on that footing endorse, vary, or change the situation meaningfully at all? The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) explained, I think, that the cross-party divisions on this issue would make a General Election wholly inappropriate on this issue.

I turn to the question of the referendum.

Mr. Jay: Mr. Jay rose——

The Solicitor-General: The Committee is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) for his book on the subject of the referendum which many people have obviously read with interest and which has provided much raw material for speeches throughout this debate. For many people, consideration of the referendum gives a fresh chance in a different context for challening entry into Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ban-bury (Mr. Marten) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) are both advancing the argument for a referendum on those grounds and others are doing so for narrower and more party reasons. Yet others, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, support the referendum because they see it as grounds to get the election which, as I have explained, would not be related to this point.
The general case for a referendum in the most expansive terms came from the

right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). Many hon. Members must have been excited and fascinated to see revealed in the House of Commons for the first time the full phrenetic force of his enthusiasm which has swept its erratic way through the Labour Party on this issue in the last six or nine months, but even he had to concede that to accept the concept of a referendum would be a major change in constitutional procedure and he put it forward on that basis. The difficulty is on the one hand that he puts it forward as a potential revolutionary weapon, or, at least, an instrument, for creating further contact between Parliament and people in support of further revolutionary changes, whereas others of his hon. Friends put it forward and reject it as a weapon of black reaction. I do not want to parody what they say—but as an obstruction to the kind of progress for which they strive.
But whether it is the one or the other, whether to shackle parliamentary democracy with the instrument of reaction or to energise it with some revolutionary machinery from Bristol, South-East, it represents a major change in our constitution and I do not think the British people would thank us for accepting a change of that kind, certainly not at the conclusion of a debate of this kind, of seven or eight hours in comparison with the time spent on the great European question. Nor would a referendum be helpful on this issue. So on the grand revolutionary scale it is too much to be acceptable, and even on this issue it simply would not work.
What question could one put to the electorate?

Mr. Benn: The same question as that before the Committee.

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Gentleman says "The same question as that before the Committee", but that is precisely to miss the point that has been made by several of my hon. Friends this afternoon. The question before the Committee has been discussed for 21 days—11 days on the run-up to the Second Reading and 10 days in Committee—in a whole range of forms.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) explained


clearly the way in which one question posed in an opinion poll was answered. People were asked whether they thought that joining Europe was in the national interest. That evoked a 51 per cent. majority in favour. In the same poll the question "Do you think that joining Europe is in your interest?" evoked a 52 per cent. majority against. That shows how difficult it would be to produce a meaningful question. If we were to consider, for example, whether to preface our referendum with the phrase adopted by M. Pompidou about the new perspectives opening up for Europe, would that be regarded as an unfair loading of the question? Or would one choose a different preamble?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I wonder whether the Solicitor-General would give the information which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) was not able to give—namely, how Norway and Denmark have formulated their questions.

The Solicitor-General: I cannot give that information; but I think there is still a vacancy for my right hon. and learned Friend because I understand that they have not drafted their questions.
Even on the Norwegian scene a referendum is not an unknown instrument. It has not been used many times—aboutfive or six times this century—so again it is in a different setting. The truth of this analysis, however, was enunciated by the right hon. Member for Dundee, East when he asked whether, even with an almost perfectly modulated, elegantly drafted question anyone seriously believed that the vote on the question could be, or would be, confined to the issue in the referendum.
The truth is that the referendum would be an inappropriate instrument to introduce into this debate. It would be inappropriate on a wider scale. As the Leader of the Opposition said about two and a half years ago,
It is contrary to our traditions in this country….Hon. Members on either side of the House do not usually feel that referenda are a way in which to conduct our public affairs. I am sure that a referendum would give 100 per cent. support for increasing expenditure on every item. It would give 100 per cent. support for abolishing income tax….It is not a way in which we can do business."

—[Official Report, 25th November, 1969; Vol. 792, c. 199–200.]
That, plainly, is the sensible verdict on referenda in general and in this particular case.
The long-term consequences of introducing such a change in our constitution would be incalculable. Ministers of the day are responsible to Parliament for the general conduct of affairs. To remain in office now and in the future, inside the Market or not, Ministers must continue to command a majority in the House of Commons on important issues. It would be a negation of that principle, not just for once, but for all time, to seek the verdict of the electorate on an issue that was before Parliament and, indeed, on which Parliament had already given its verdict. To accept the proposal for a referendum on this issue would be to transform—and I mean that literally; not juristically, but in practice, and on an unforeseen range of issues, which might embarrass both sides of the House as much as each other—the whole representative character of our constitution.
It is that which would do irreversible damage to the sovereignty of Parliament, because once that had been done Parliament would never again be the same. It is upon that basis that I invite the Committee to reject both these Amendments.

Mr. Michael Foot: Everyone who has heard the debate today on the two interlocked subjects included by these Amendments will agree that the debate has been fascinating, on a subject of major importance for anyone concerned with our parliamentary system. No one who has heard the debate would think that it was superfluous, out of place or unnecessary. The Patronage Secretary should understand too that the time which has been available for discussing these matters is that which the House properly insists upon, because there are many hon. Members on both sides, as has been shown by the debate, who think that these matters are of paramount importance.
Possibly the only Member who has spoken who would qualify that view is my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham(Mr. Harold Lever). He has presented a view about the nature of the Bill which certainly does not accord with the view put by most


other hon. Members, whatever views they may happen to take about entry to the Common Market. I am happy to know that my right hon. Friend will attend our future debates on these subjects—he is always telling us that he is more interested in the future than in the past—but if he had been able to attend our past debates he could not have reached the conclusion about the nature of the Bill which he sought to present so eloquently to the Committee.
Of course it is formally true that anything we do under the Bill is formally revocable. I should be happy to have that stated in an Amendment. I hope that we shall have the support of my right hon. Friend when we make assurance doubly sure, if that is how he would like it put, by having an Amendment to make it clear, perhaps by a single affirmative Resolution, that we could reverse the process under which we had got into the Common Market. As, under the Government's proposals, it might conceivably be only under a single affirmative Resolution that we would have to agree to a Financial Resolution, my right hon. Friend could not possibly agree that we should revoke this by a single affirmative Resolution. So we could possibly accommodate that matter in that way.
My right hon. Friend was hardly being serious, however, when he presented the case as he did. There is an argument for subordinating the sovereignty—or, as I would prefer to say, the democracy; the arguments about sovereignty are arguments about democracy—of this country to the institutions which have been provided or assembled in Europe. I understand the argument. I do not agree with it, but I know that many hon. Members make the proposition that this is what we should do in the interests of the economy and for a variety of other reasons. But what no one who has heard our debates can contend is that there is no substantial reduction in the sovereignty or the decision-making power of the House of Commons.
The reason why I assert that—I cannot argue that again now, because it is what we have been arguing about in the days past and will be arguing about in the months that are to come—is that these matters are included in the fact that the right to tax and the right to legislate over major matters will be transferred

from the House of Commons and many important questions will be subject solely to a single vote—matters which hitherto in the history of Parliament have been debated through all the processes of Acts of Parliament. The Government have rejected Amendments which would insist on our retaining our legislative sovereignty.
I therefore assure my right hon. Friend—I will not argue at great length, because this is a side issue to the major part of the debate—that his definition of the nature of the Bill will not stand investigation. The Bill itself proves that the diminution in the sovereignty of the House of Commons is far greater than he suggested. No one who treats this seriously can say that it will be easy later to reverse it and that therefore one need not worry too much about it.
11.15 p.m.
When we join the Common Market I hope that this country will insist upon its right to try to rearrange the settlement—to revoke it altogether, perhaps. I certainly hope we shall retain that right. But it would be an infinitely difficult and complicated process which would lay this country open to the charge of bad faith from many of the countries in Europe. Anyone who denied that and tried to dismiss it with the kind of flippancy that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham did tonight would be guilty of misleading the House of Commons. They may have been unwittingly said but his remarks about the nature of the Bill would have the effect of misleading the House of Commons about the surrender of some of its essential rights.

Mr. Harold Lever: I said that it was impossible to contend that sovereignty was being irreversibly given away when it was part of my right hon. Friend's case that they will reverse the process as soon as they are back in power.

Mr. Foot: I think I put the case in reply to my right hon. Friend perfectly fairly. It is quibbling for him to suggest that if the Bill becomes law, if all the processes are gone through, if the declaration is made on 1st January, 1973, and all the machinery is then in operation, the reversal of that process is just as easy on this Bill as on any other. To say that is to mislead the House of


Commons and the country. That is not the situation we have to deal with.

Sir T. Beamish: Does the hon. Member believe that the merging of sovereignty which will result from joining the Community this year will be greater in any single respect than it would have been if the application made by the Labour Government of which the hon. Member was a supporter had been successful?

Mr. Foot: There are many respects in which it would be so, and these are some of the matters we have been debating throughout the Bill. It is one of the reasons why even my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson), a strong pro-Marketeer, said that this is a much more brief and brutal Bill than the Labour Government would have introduced. The meaning of the "brutal" is precisely that the Government are trying to force through a Bill which takes away the rights of the House of Commons in a way which would not have been necessary for joining the Common Market. That is the direct answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish).
Let me turn to another aspect, because I wish to deal directly with the Amendments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East said at the beginning of the debate and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham said later that they are quite prepared to vote for the Amendment dealing with a General Election. They have no objection to voting for that Amendment, but there is a slight difference of emphasis in the way they suggested that they would be willing to vote tonight. They say that they are willing to vote tonight because they wish to remove the Government on other grounds. There are plenty of other grounds and we all understand that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East talks, however, as if it is very difficult, a near impossibility, to have a General Election on the issue of the Common Market, although not ruling that out quite as all-embracingly as did the Leader of the Liberal Party. My right hon. Friend says, in effect, that we cannot have an election of this character in these political circumstances on the question of the Common Market.
The consent of the people to British entry into the Common Market is a matter that has figured prominently in the debates about the Common Market ever since the proposal was made, not merely in the last few weeks or months but over the years. I therefore take leave to read to the Committee again a quotation which I have read before, but it is one which I address particularly to my right hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Stetchford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and for Dundee, East, who have argued how difficult or awkward or unnecessary it is to have a General Election on the Common Market issue.
I ask them to remember what was said—I repeat it because I believe that it states the case with classic irrefragability—by the late Hugh Gaitskell to the Labour Party conference on this precise Amendment point in 1962:
I repeat again my demand: If when the final terms are known this party—the major opposition party, the alternative Government of the country—comes to the conclusion that these terms are not good enough, if it is our conviction that we should not enter the Common Market on these terms, so that there is a clear clash of opinion between the two major political groupings in the country, then the only right and proper and democratic thing is to let the people decide the issue…Of course, Mr. Macmillan has given a pledge in his broadcast. He said: 'When we know the final position, then it will be for us here in Britain to decide what to do'. For us here in Britain? Who does he mean? Does he mean the Government? Or the Tory Party? Or the British people?
We are now being told that the British people are not capable of judging this issue"—
we have heard some undertones of that today—
the Government knows best; the top people are the only people who can understand it; it is difficult for the rest. This is the classic argument of every tyranny in history…We did not win the political battles of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to have this reactionary nonsense thrust upon us again.
In the face of that it is not possible for any member of the Labour Party who respects that statement which was made to that conference to say that the demand to have a General Election predominantly on the issue that divides the parties on the Common Market is an improper demand. It was one which was made by Hugh Gaitskell.
I take a quotation from another Leader of the Labour Party whose


opinion will be respected by all my hon. Friends. When the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) was Prime Minister, he talked about the circumstances in which we might be taken into the Common Market. A Sunday Express article in December, 1963, carried this report of the right hon. Gentleman's view of possible British entry into the Common Market and Lord Attlee's comments
Asked about entry into the Common Market at the Kinross by-election"—
the right hon. Gentleman—
said that the opportunity might not recur but that, if it did, it would be up to Parliament to decide what to do. This is just not good enough, said Lord Attlee. It means that the Government would decide to go in and seek support from Parliament by a vote in the House, no doubt with the Whips on. It is the electors who have the right to decide on a vital matter of this kind.
The view expressed in Amendment No. 23 is not a view which has been concocted at the last moment. It is a view which has been expressed by the Labour Party—[Hon. Members: "What about the Leader of the Labour Party?"]—and it is a view which is supported by the Labour Party today precisely for the reason that if there is a divergence between the major parties in the State on a matter of such supreme importance, as this is, it is only the people of the country who have a right to decide. That is what we are discussing.
That brings me to the statement of the Prime Minister which has been so often referred to in this debate about the full-hearted consent of the British Parliament and people. The Prime Minister's argument on the question of consent seems to be that the consent of the people does not matter. That is the only interpretation that can be placed on the repeated statements that the Prime Minister has made in the House of Commons and elsewhere. Whenever he has been challenged on this subject and what he meant by the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people, he has said "Well, we must forget about the people. We lop off that. I only meant the full-hearted consent of Parliament." Therefore, the first defence of the Prime Minister is that consent of the people does not matter.
Or is it the right hon. Gentleman's defence that he got the mandate? We

have had much debate about that in this discussion. I certainly did not read those words in the Conservative manifesto or in the various statements that were made by other Ministers at the election as saying that they wanted the British people to know that the Common Market was an issue in the General Election and that if they were elected it was very likely that they would have to proceed to secure, or attempt to secure, entry into the European Economic Community. [Hon. Members: "That was precisely what was said."] No, it was not. They said that, but they said something else as well. They said "to negotiate", no more, no less. The purpose of putting in those words was precisely not to make it an issue in the election but to remove it from being an issue in the election. We know what the Government wanted to fight the election on. They wanted to fight it——

Sir Gilbert Longden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is an honourable man. Will he put his hand on his heart and tell the Committee whether, when he heard the Prime Minister make that statement, the word "referendum" ever entered his head? It was against the policy of all three political parties at that time.

Mr. Foot: I am coming to the question of a referendum, if the hon. Member will permit me. I will not try to escape from it. I understand that that is the second part of the second Amendment. Our principal Amendment, however, and much the most important in our view which we are presenting to the Committee today, is the demand for a General Election. We say that that is the best way of dealing with it.
I have tried to show to the Committee, I would have thought conclusively, that it has always been the view of the Labour Party, over not merely the last weeks but over the years, that if on the terms of entry there was to be a major divergence between the major parties, if there was a division between the major parties on the issue of the terms, that should be put to the electors. [Hon. Members: "Where is the Leader of the Opposition?"] It may be that hon. Members on the Government side do not like it all that much, and the


Prime Minister, who gave the pledge about full-hearted consent, has not shown himself in the debate. [Hon. Members: "Where is the Leader of the Opposition?"] I said it in reply to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) who interrupted from the Government side. So I say to the Committee that the only way in which this matter can be honourably settled is if it is referred to the people of the country. I shall come in a moment to the arguments of the Leader of the Liberal Party who says that such a conclusion is impossible.
Now let me turn, however, to the alternative proposition of a referendum.

11.30 p.m.

Sir D. Renton: If the General Election Amendment were carried, if we had a General Election and if by some mischance the Labour Party was elected and then renegotiated the terms, is the hon. Gentleman assuming that we on this side would necessarily agree with the renegotiated terms? If we did not, would he expect to have another General Election before those terms could be passed into law?

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Mr. Foot: It happens to be my view that the people who should settle the question of whether Britain is to go into the European Economic Community are the people of this country, not Parliament alone. [Hon. Members: "Answer."] I am answering. Therefore, I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the answer absolutely clearly that if a Labour Government renegotiated terms of entry into the EEC, and those terms were deeply disputed by the official Opposition party, we should have exactly the situation described in Mr. Hugh Gaitskell's speech. [Interruption.] We would indeed. We would then have exactly the circumstances that were described in Mr. Gaitskell's speech, and the only way to settle a matter between major parties in those circumstances would be by an appeal to the electorate. [An Hon. Member: "How many General Elections?"] There have been quite a number of occasions in the history of this country when we have had a number of elections to decide these questions. It

would be better to have an extra election than to take Britain into the Common Market against the people's will, which is the proposition the Government are trying to put to us.
There has been some attempt to suggest that the referendum has been considered by many of us on this side only because we thought it might be a convenient way—[An Hon. Member: "To split the party."]—of securing a vote against the Government. That thought of a vote against the Government did cross my mind. I cannot say it was excluded. After all, we cannot exclude the national interest altogether. The long-term national interest of securing the removal of the Government from office cannot be excluded from our thoughts and calculations. But that is not the only reason. There are plenty of other reasons.
When some of my hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Cheetham and Dundee, East, argue that there is something improper about a referendum, they have not the basis for doing so. There may be a few hon. Members who came into the House at the last election who have never partipicated in recommending a referendum, but for the rest none of us can say, perhaps, that we are consistent on the subject—[Laughter.] Yes, indeed, but to those who say that a proposal for a referendum is so outrageous that it would subvert the constitution altogether I reply that it is a very strange doctrine from those right hon. and hon. Members who have frequently recommended and carried through referenda to be applied to other people.
Many, if not all, of the colonial territories have had referenda built in to their constitutions—for example, the West Indies and Gibraltar. Of course hon. Members may say that that is all right for them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham said that it was all right for the Canary Islands. But the point is that those referenda were applied precisely because a constitutional issue was involved, because it was thought necessary and desirable that, in the subsequent rule and conduct of their affairs, sanction should be given to what was done. In other words, they said "We have to have popular approval for what is done in these territories." It is no


good saying that these were small territories. They were as concerned about their future in the West Indies, in Ghana or any other territory where referenda applied as we are concerned about the EEC. No right hon. or hon. Member, certainly not if he was a member of the Labour Government, can say that he dismisses altogether the idea of a referendum to settle these matters.
Of course we have argued that it would be very much better to have a General Election to settle this thing. That is our first choice. What is the situation that faces the House of Commons? What is the judgment that is passed on our electoral system?

Sir Frederic Bennett: You are nuts !

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Sir Robert.

Mr. Foot: I think it would be better, when discussing the question of the whole future of parliamentary democracy, if a higher proportion of sober hon. Members on the Government side were to come in.
What will be the judgment on our electoral system if at the end of the debate we have to say "The situation is such, our electoral system is such, our rejection of a General Election to deal with this matter is such and our rejection of the alternative of a referendum is such, that there is no method under the British constitutional and electoral practice whereby the British people shall have their opportunity of saying whether we should go into the EEC"? If that were to be the conclusion it would be a sorry verdict upon our electoral system. If that were the result of differences of opinion between the parties, if on such an issue the people were exempted from voting, it would be a serious reflection on the electoral system and on our whole constitutional processes.

But it is not the case. The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) says that a General Election on the question of whether Britain should join the EEC on these terms is totally impossible. He thinks so because there are differences between the parties—[Interruption]—differences between the parties and within the parties. This is not the first occasion in British history that there have been differences within the parties. The British party system has to adapt itself to this. The Liberal Party has not always gone into our electoral battles absolutely united on every issue. So what is the use of the right hon. Gentleman, who can remember the story of Ireland and possibly the whole history of his party, saying that because there are divisions within the parties the British people are to be denied the right to vote, denied the right to make the final settlement?

If the House of Commons were to reach that conclusion in this and future debates—that this must be done without consulting the people—we would have inflicted the gravest possible damage on our whole democratic process. We have not got the right to do that. Junius wrote:
The Power of King, Lords and Commons is not an arbitrary power. They are the trustees not the owners of the estate. The fee simple is in us.
That means the British people, and we have no right to use arbitrary power to insist that the British constitution shall be changed in the way proposed in the Bill. If we do this we will have betrayed the trust of the people who sent us to the House of Commons and the consequences will be serious, not only for the party that does it but for the whole British constitution.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 272, Noes 301.

Division No. 128.]
AYES
[11.41 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur


Albu, Austen
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Baxter, William
Bradley, Tom


Allen, Scholefield
Beaney, Alan
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Ashley, Jack
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchan, Norman


Ashton, Joe
Bishop, E. S.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)


Atkinson, Norman
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Barnes, Michael
Booth, Albert
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)




Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurie


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Pendry, Tom


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Janner, Greville
Pentland, Norman


Cohen, Stanley
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, Ernest G.


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
John, Brynmor
Prescott, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cronin, John
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Richard, Ivor


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda. W.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davidson, Arthur
Judd, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kerr, Russell
Roper, John



Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Paul B.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lambie, David
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Rowlands, Edward


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Arthur
Sandelson, Neville


Delargy, Hugh
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leonard, Dick
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dempsey, James
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lipton Marcus
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lomas, Kenneth
Sillars, James


Driberg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Skinner, Dennis


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Small, William


Dunn, James A.
Mabon. Dr. J. Dickson
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Dunnett, Jack
McBride, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


Edelman, Maurice
McElhone, Frank
Stallard, A. W.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McGuire, Michael
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Ellis, Tom
Mackie, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Evans, Fred
Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Ewing, Harry
McManus, Frank
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Swain, Thomas


Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Taverne, Dick


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marquand, David
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Foley, Maurice
Marsden, F.
Tinn, James


Foot, Michael
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Tomney, Frank


Ford, Ben
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Torney, Tom


Forrester, John
Mayhew, Christopher
Tuck, Raphael


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Meacher, Michael
Urwin, T. W.


Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Varley, Eric G.


Garrett, W. E.
Mendelson, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mikardo, Ian
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Millan, Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wallace, George


Gourlay, Harry
Milne, Edward
Watkins, David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Weitzman, David


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wellbeloved, James


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitehead, Phillip


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Whitlock, William


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Moyle, Roland
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hamling, William
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Murray, Ronald King
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Htchn)


Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Malley, Brian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hattersley, Roy
Oram, Bert
Woof, Robert


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Orbach, Maurice



Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Horam, John
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mr. John Golding.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Padley, Walter



Huckfield, Leslie
Paget, R. T.








NOES


Adley, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Le Marchant, Spencer


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fortescue, Tim
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Foster, Sir John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fowler, Norman
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Astor, John
Fox, Marcus
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Atkins, Humphrey
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone]
Loveridge, John


Awdry, Daniel
Fry, Peter
Luce, R. N.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gardner, Edward
MacArthur, Ian


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Gibson-Watt, David
McCrindle, R. A.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McLaren, Martin


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Macmillan. Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Benyon, W.
Goodhew, Victor
Maddan, Martin


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gorst, John
Madel, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Gower, Raymond
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Blaker, Peter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mather, Carol


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gray, Hamish
Maude, Angus


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Green, Alan
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray


Bowden, Andrew
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bray, Ronald
Grylls, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Miscampbell, Norman


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Money, Ernle


Bryan, Paul
Hail-Davis, A. G. F.
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Buchanan-Smith,Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector


Buck, Antony
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
More, Jasper


Burden, F. A.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Haselhurst, Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Charles


Carlisle, Mark
Havers, Michael
Mudd, David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Murton, Oscar


Cary, Sir Robert
Hay, John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Channon, Paul
Hayhoe, Barney
Neave, Airey


Chapman, Sydney
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Heseltine, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hicks, Robert
Normanton, Tom


Churchill, W. S.
Higgins, Terence L.
Nott, John


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hiley, Joseph
Onslow, Cranley


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Clegg, Walter
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Osborn, John


Cockeram, Eric
Holland, Philip
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Cooke, Robert
Holt, Miss Mary
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Coombs, Derek
Hooson, Emlyn
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Cooper, A. E.
Hordern, Peter
Pardoe, John


Cordle, John
Hornby, Richard
Parkinson, Cecil


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Peel, John


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian


Costain, A. P.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Crouch, David
Iremonger, T. L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Crowder, F. P.
James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jessel, Toby
Proudfoot, Wilfred



Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)



d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Dean, Paul
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Jopling, Michael
Raison, Timothy


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dixon, Piers
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Redmond, Robert


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Drayson, G. B.
Kilfedder, James
Rees-Davies, W. R.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dykes, Hugh
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Eden, Sir John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kinsey, J. R.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Emery, Peter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Eyre, Reginald
Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lambton, Lord
Rost, Peter


Fidler, Michael
Lane, David
Royle, Anthony


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Legge-Bourke. Sir Harry
St. John-Stevas, Norman







Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Scott, Nicholas
Sutcliffe, John
Wall, Patrick


Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Ward, Dame Irene


Sharples, Richard
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Simeons, Charles
Tebbit, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Sinclair, Sir George
Temple, John M.
Wiggin, Jerry


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Winterton, Nicholas


Soref, Harold
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Speed, Keith
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Spence, John
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Sproat, Iain
Tilney, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Stainton, Keith
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Worsley, Marcus


Stanbrook, Ivor
Trew, Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Steel, David
Tugendhat, Christopher
Younger, Hn. George


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Waddington, David
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Stokes, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Mr. Oscar Murton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 205, in page 2, line 23, at end add:
(5) This Act shall come into force on a day to be appointed by Statutory Instrument passed by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament, but no such date shall be appointed until a consultative advisory referendum, having no binding effect upon

the Government, has first been held, thereby enabling the Government to assess the extent to which the Treaty of Accession has the full-hearted support of the British people.—[Mr. Marten.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 235, Noes 284.

Division No. 129]
AYES
[11.57 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Deakins, Eric
Hattersley, Roy


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Delargy, Hugh
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Heffer, Eric S.


Armstrong, Ernest
Dempsey, James
Hooson, Emlyn


Ashley, Jack
Doig, Peter
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Ashton, Joe
Dormand, J. D.
Huckfield, Leslie


Atkinson, Norman
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Baxter, William
Dunn, James A.
Hunter, Adam


Beaney, Alan
Dunnett, Jack
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bell, Ronald
Eadie, Alex
Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Janner, Greville


Bidwell, Sydney
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bishop, E. S.
English, Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, Fred
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ewing, Harry
John, Brynmor


Body, Richard
Farr, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Booth, Albert
Fell, Anthony
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Foot, Michael
Judd, Frank


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Forrester, John
Kaufman, Gerald


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kelley, Richard


Cant, R. B.
Freeson, Reginald
Kerr, Russell


Carmichael, Neil
Fry, Peter
Kinnock, Neil


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Garrett, W. E.
Lambie, David


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lamond, James


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Latham, Arthur


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Golding, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Goodhart, Philip
Leonard, Dick


Cohen, Stanley
Gourlay, Harry
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Coleman, Donald
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Concannon, J. D.
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lipton, Marcus


Cronin, John
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Loughlin, Charles


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McBride, Neil


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J,
McCartney, Hugh


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McElhone, Frank


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hamling, William
Mackenzie, Gregor


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hardy, Peter
Maclennan, Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Harper, Joseph
McManus, Frank


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMaster, Stanley


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)






McNamara, J. Kevin
Pendry, Tom
Strang, Gavin


Maginnis, John E.
Pentland, Norman
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Perry, Ernest G.
Sutcliffe, John


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Pounder, Rafton
Swain, Thomas


Marks, Kenneth
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Marsden, F.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Prescott, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Probert, Arthur
Tinn, James


Meacher, Michael
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Tomney, Frank


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Torney, Tom


Mendelson, John
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Tuck, Raphael


Mikardo, Ian
Richard, Ivor
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Millan, Bruce
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Miller, Dr. M. S.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Urwin, T. W.


Milne, Edward
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Varley, Eric G.


Molyneaux, James
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wainwright, Edwin


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rowlands, Edward
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Sandelson, Neville
Wallace, George


Moyle, Roland
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Watkins, David


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Weitzman, David


Murray, Ronald King
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Oakes, Gordon
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


O'Halloran, Michael
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitlock, William


O'Malley, Brian
Sillars, James
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Orbach, Maurice
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Orme, Stanley
Small, William
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Oswald, Thomas
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Paget, R. T.
Stallard, A. W.
Woof, Robert


Palmer, Arthur
Steel, David



Parker, John (Dagenham)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Mr. Neil Marten and


Pavitt, Laurie
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Mr. Roger Moate.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Coombs, Derek
Gorst, John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cooper, A. E.
Gower, Raymond


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cordle, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Gray, Hamish


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cormack, Patrick
Green, Alan


Astor, John
Costain, A. P.
Grieve, Percy


Atkins, Humphrey
Critchley, Julian
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Awdry, Daniel
Crouch, David
Grylls, Michael


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Crowder, F. P.
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gurden, Harold


Balniel, Lord
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmld.Maj. -Gen. James
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Batsford, Brian
Dean, Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Dixon, Piers
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Benyon, W.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Haselhurst, Alan


Blaker, Peter
Drayson, G. B.
Hastings, Stephen


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Havers, Michael


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Hawkins, Paul


Bossom, Sir Clive
Eden, Sir John
Hay, John


Bowden, Andrew
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hayhoe, Barney


Braine, Sir Bernard
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bray, Ronald
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Heseltine, Michael


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Emery, Peter
Hicks, Robert


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Eyre, Reginald
Higgins, Terrence L.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hiley, Joseph


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fidler, Michael
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Bryan, Paul
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstaad)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)




Buck, Antony
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Holland, Philip


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Holt, Miss Mary


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Fortescue, Tim
Hordern, Peter


Carlisle, Mark
Foster, Sir John
Hornby, Richard


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fowler, Norman
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Cary, Sir Robert
Fox, Marcus
Howell, David (Guildford)


Channon, Paul
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Chapman, Sydney
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Hunt, John


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gardner, Edward
Iremonger, T. L.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gibson-Watt, David
James, David


Churchill, W. S.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Jessel, Toby


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Cockeram, Eric
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Cooke Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)







Jopling, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Soref, Harold


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Speed, Keith


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Neave, Airey
Spence, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sproat, Iain


Kershaw, Anthony
Normanton, Tom
Stainton, Keith


Kilfedder, James
Nott, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kimball Marcus
Onslow, Cranley
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Osborn, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Kinsey, J. R.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stokes, John


Kirk, Peter
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Kitson, Timothy
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pardoe, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Knox, David
Parkinson, Cecil
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Lambton, Antony
Peel, John
Tebbit, Norman


Lane, David
Percival, Ian
Temple, John M.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Pink, R. Bonner
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Price, David (Eastleigh)



Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Longden, Gilbert
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Tilney, John


Loveridge, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Luce, R. N.
Raison, Timothy
Trew, Peter


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tugendhat, Christopher


MacArthur, Ian
Redmond, Robert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


McCrindle, R. A.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


McLaren, Martin
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Waddington, David


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wall, Patrick


Maddan, Martin
Ridsdale, Julian
Ward, Dame Irene


Madel, David
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Warren, Kenneth


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mather, Carol
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Mawby, Ray
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wiggin, Jerry


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rost, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Royle, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Miscampbell, Norman
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Scott, Nicholas
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Woodnutt, Mark


Money, Ernle
Sharples, Richard
Worsley, Marcus


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Monro, Hector
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Younger, Hn. George


Montgomery, Fergus
Simeons, Charles



More, Jasper
Sinclair, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Morrison, Charles
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Mr. Walter Clegg.

Question accordingly negatived.

The Chairman: I call Amendment No. 40.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. I wonder, Sir Robert, whether you would accept at this stage a Motion, 
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. 
I hope that it would be an appropriate time to move that Motion, particularly in view of the debate we have had and the time. I ask for leave to move such a Motion.

The Chairman: Yes, I would be prepared to grant it.

Mr. Foot: I am most grateful to you, Sir Robert. I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Committee has debated the matters under discussion now at possibly greater length than some people had forecast. But I do not believe that anyone would question the necessity for all the time that has been allocated to the Bill. Indeed, a considerable number of hon. Members, on both sides of the Committee, would have been eager still to continue the debate. Moreover, a fact which I think everybody should take into account is that in the last debate, owing to circumstances of the matters under discussion, many Privy Councillors were called, which meant that many back-benchers were excluded from participation.
The debate has possibly continued much longer than some had foreseen, so that if we start on the next group of Amendments we do so at a very late hour on matters which are of a serious character and which we very much hope


can be fully debated. It would be well nigh impossible, if the Committee is to do its business properly, for any conclusion on the next round of Amendments to be reached tonight. It would be much better and for the great convenience of the Committee if we were to move to report progress now so that we can start the next bunch of Amendments when the Committee meets tomorrow. I ask the Government to accede to this suggestion.

Mr. Rippon: I do not entirely share the views of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) on this occasion. It is true that the debate took rather longer than expected, but only about half an hour longer. On a number of occasions during the Committee stage we have had a major debate followed by a relatively shorter debate on a group of Amendments which did not raise issues of great substance. I am not suggesting that the next group does not raise points of importance, but it raises points which have been gone over fairly substantially already, not only on Second Reading but in discussion on a number of other Amendments. In those circumstances it would be reasonable to make the further progress tonight which is necessary if we are to proceed to conclude our discussions on Clause 1 in what I am sure hon. Members recognise to be reasonable time.

Mr. Foot: I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider that reply, first on the time we took for the last debate. Nobody knows what was the original calculation and can say for certain what extra time has been used. None the less, many expected that we might reach an end at about 10.30 p.m. There would then have been a stronger case for embarking on a new run of Amendments. Possibly, if that had been the state of affairs, the moving of the new Amendments could have taken half an hour or so, the Committee could then have moved to report progress and we could have come back to resume the debate tomorrow. However, the fact that the previous debate has taken almost two hours longer than was foreseen should influence the decision on whether to start the next debate. The last debate was sustained not only from one side of the Committee. It was a debate which many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides were sustaining.
The debate on the last Amendments, far from being extensive, did not touch very much on a number of Amendments grouped with the main ones. We do not accept that the next group of Amendments are on subjects already discussed. If that were true, in the sense in which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has described them, the Chair would not have accepted them in their present terms. If the next group of Amendments had been discussed previously the Chair would have bracketed them with other Amendments, because in the selection of Amendments the Chair has on many occasions taken steps to bracket together as many Amendments as possible. Indeed, some of us argue that that has been carried to lengths which warrant our criticism.

12.15 a.m.

If what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says is true, the next group of Amendments could have been incorporated with other Amendments. They touch on matters which we have not been able to discuss so far. They touch on questions of treaties which have never been debated properly. I therefore urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider his decision and agree to adjourn the debate now. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to accept this proposition it will be much more satisfactory and much fairer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) who is to move the next Amendment, if, after the debate we have had on the previous Amendments, he is able to do that tomorrow.

If the Government will not accept that proposition, will they be prepared, so that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee know what the situation is, to accept the proposition, which would be a concession from our point of view but one which would ease the position from the point of view of the Committee, for my right hon. and learned Friend to move the next Amendment and then for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to move to report progress? If that were done, we should adjourn and meet again tomorrow. In that case, the time at which the Committee adjourned would be roughly the time that had been estimated by the Government's business managers.

Mr. Rippon: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful. I do not want to go into the substance of the Amendments or to take up further time in discussing this issue. If the next Amendment is moved, the Committee will be able to judge the substance of it and of the Amendments being taken with it. It may be found that they can be dealt with quite quickly. But let us see what progress can be made and then consider the matter further.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Am I to take it that the Motion to report progress is debatable?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Kaufman: That being so, it is open to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is unwilling to accept my hon. Friend's reasonable proposal, to debate the Motion for some hours.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is correct. It is a debatable Motion, otherwise I should not be allowing a debate now.

Mr. English: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that his attitude does not encourage the co-operation that he received during the previous debate? I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman recollects that on the last debate no Closure had to be moved by the Patronage Secretary. That was because of the co-operation of hon. Members.
I had wanted to speak in the last debate, as had my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) and, from a slightly different point of view, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes). We all restrained ourselves, merely for the convenience of the Committee as a whole; so that the Committee could vote on the previous Amendments before 12 o'clock and the Government's business managers could, as they anticipated, despatch the Committee at about midnight.
Had any hon. Member stood up to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) had concluded his winding up, the Patronage Secretary would have had to move the

Closure and there would have been a further vote, at the very least, with what outcome, in the circumstances of the Bill, no man knoweth. When that sort of co-operation is given and we are faced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude—at first blankly suggesting that we should go through a whole new series of Amendments, and then even rejecting the reasonable offer of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale—we shall know what to do in future when we reach midnight, the whole House wants a vote and the Government managers want the co-operation of back benchers. If that is his attitude, we can act in the same way.

Mr. Paget: I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy will reconsider. He will gain no more time for his Bill by being stubborn on this point. We feel that his attitude is genuinely unfair. Today we have had not an ordinary Committee stage at all but what was expected to be, and was treated as, a major debate. Many of us who were here throughout were not called. A large number of Privy Councillors were called and there were many long speeches. I am not complaining: on both sides, they were very good, serious and interesting speeches. To a great degree, hon. Members refused interventions, which is most unusual in a Committee stage, so as to save time. At the end of that debate, those of us who had not been called did not get up to assert our right to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) thereby forcing the Government to move the Closure.
When we play the game like that, when we accept it as a major debate and it goes on as an extended debate almost until midnight, it is most unfair of the Government not to act in the same spirit by saying "We have had co-operation in this debate and we will not now try to coerce the Opposition to start a Committee stage which they are reluctant to do because they are tired and have been here continuously and they feel a grievance". The right hon. Gentleman has had the good will and the co-operation. He will make little progress and will simply throw it away if he continues to be stubborn on this.

Mr. Orme: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not got the sense of the House on this issue. We have had not just a major but a historic debate today. No one would have thought that it was the Committee stage of a Bill. It was more like a major Second or Third Reading debate on central issues. The Leader of the House is laughing about this sort of thing, but he will laugh on the other side of his face if the Opposition set out to see that he does not get any more business tonight, as they easily could.
If the Chancellor had read the House correctly, he would have recognised that we have had a debate in which the Chamber has been full from 3.30 to 11.30. Both sides of the Committee were intensely interested. In these Common Market debates we have often been criticised by the Press for lack of attendance or interest. Today hon. Members have outnumbered the Press in their attendance, and it will be interesting to see how the debate is reported tomorrow. Some hon. Members regard this as funny. Others think that the subjects we have debated today are of major importance.
We are now debating a Motion to report progress. If the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wants to run the debate on through the night, I can tell him that many of us have had experience on other Bills, as the Leader of the House knows. The next Amendments that will come before the Committee are of major importance, dealing with treaties and with EFTA, issues which have not been dealt with fully in the Bill before. If, instead of adjourning now and starting again at 3.30 p.m. tomorrow, the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to force the Committee on through the night, he might not see any of those Amendments tomorrow without a tremendous battle and the moving of Closures.
The absence of the Patronage Secretary today has been interesting. He has realised that the debate has been allowed to run. My hon. Friends who might have wished to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) did not do so, having taken the sense of the Committee and in the knowledge that the Committee wanted to reach a decision. The votes were taken. Now, we are kept in here by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who feels that he will

force through a little bit more business tonight.
We have news for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He will not get any more business. If he wants to run the Committee ragged he can attempt it, but I warn him that not only will he have difficulty tonight but he will have extended difficulty tomorrow.
This is the tenth or eleventh day on the Bill. There has been no filibustering in the sense of deliberate delaying tactics. Hon. Members on both sides will recognise that the great difficulty is getting in to speak in the debate. It is not a question of making long filibustering speeches.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has had long supporting speeches from both sides. I do not quarrel with my right hon. Friends who have made important speeches from their point of view. They were not speaking against the Government or the Bill, although they took a considerable part of the time. Therefore, many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members on the Government side were not able to take part.

Mr. Kaufman: Is my hon. Friend aware, for example, that my right hon. Friend and neighbour in Manchester, the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), whose speech was listened to with enormous appreciation by the Committee, took up almost an hour, including the time for the Division? Nobody would have begrudged him a moment of the time he took, but he took all that time to support the Government—again, something we would not deny him out of his conscience. Nobody could say, however, that my right hon. Friend was delaying the Government's business. From his point of view he was attempting to facilitate the Government's business.

Mr. Orme: That is the whole point. I make no criticism against my right hon. Friends who made their contributions in a serious setting. They were listened to by the whole Committee, as I think all the speeches have been listened to today. In many ways the Hansard of today's debate is likely to become a classic because of the content and nature of the debate. It will probably be quoted for many years to come.
I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider his decision. He has misread the mood of the Committee and he has misread what business he thinks he can get. In the circumstances, I urge him to support the Motion to report progress.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I wish to underline what my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has said about the special character of today's debate. Many of us have listened to many debates in Parliament, but rarely to a debate consisting of speeches of such a high standard and with conflicting views. At the end of the day the Chancellor of the Duchy would do well to get the feeling of the whole Committee about the importance of the occasion rather than to allow it to dwindle or taper away in his effort to get a few more Amendments debated. He should realise that today has been, even for hon. Members who have served for many years in the House of Commons, a memorable occasion. One of the aspirations of those of us who try to do a good job of work in whatever sphere we serve is to be good House of Commons men.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to allow hon. Members to depart retaining the sense of participation they had throughout today's memorable debate, rather than with a sense that they have been part of a manoeuvre or a brawl or a delaying tactic. We are not trying to be obstructive at this stage.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I had intended to ask my right hon. and learned Friend to change his mind and allow the Committee to report progress, for two reasons—first, because the Opposition has already shown that they have had enough and want to stop and, therefore, will be in a very weak position when at any later stage it might be necessary to bring in a timetable Motion in connection with the Bill; and, second, because I believe—this has not been said often enough—that the country at large thinks that we are daft to continue our affairs after midnight. The general public criticise us for seeking to run the country but not being able to run our own affairs sufficiently sensibly to be able to pack up at midnight. We

do not want to go on into the middle watch. I have kept enough middle watches in my life not to want to go on keeping any more.
However, having heard the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), and having heard the left wing of the Labour Party threaten to disrupt the work of the House of Commons in the way that they encourage so many of their friends in other spheres to disrupt the work of the country, I now tell my right hon. and learned Friend that I, for one, will sit here all night if he wants me to.

Mr. Buchan: The Chancellor of the Duchy should think again. He has seriously misjudged the mood of the Committee and that of his party. We have had an extraordinary and memorable day. The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) has shown that the lower deck in his party feels the same way about it. Both sides of the Committee, and the lower deck on both sides, urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider his attitude.

Mr. Michael Foot: Earlier I made the perfectly reasonable suggestion that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) should move the next Amendment and that our proceedings should then be deferred. I gather that the Government resist that proposal and wish to proceed to the end of the debate on the next group of Amendments. We do not like that proposition, because it would be much better if these extremely important Amendments were discussed tomorrow.
We could continue to debate the Motion for another hour or so and vote upon it at about 2 a.m. If the Government survived that test we would start on the Amendments, and two or three hours debate upon them would take us to about 4 a.m. I do not think that is the best way for the House to proceed.
I suggest what would be a most far-reaching concession by us, to ask leave to withdraw the Motion in a moment and ask my hon. Friends to accept that. We should then discuss the next batch of Amendments on the understanding that immediately these Amendments were concluded the Government would be prepared to move to report progress.
But I shall make one thing clear. One of the reasons why we wish to protect the business of the Bill both tomorrow and on the next day when we meet to discuss it is that we believe that the debate which will take place on the Question "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill" will be one of the most in-port ant debates that will take place on the Bill. On this side of the House we would regard any abbreviation of that debate as a serious inroad into our rights. Many references have been made in the course of the debate to the fact that the only way in which we can discuss certain propositions will be to discuss them on the Question. You, Sir Robert, have ruled on a number of occasions that, because of the way in which you believed it was necessary to rule that certain Amendments were out of order altogether, the only way in which certain major questions could be dealt with was on the debate on the Question "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill".
This figured most prominently in some of our earlier discussions. So, when I make this suggestion of how we should proceed tonight it is certainly not how we would have preferred it. I hope the Government will be under no illusions about what we consider to be the rights of the House and the Committee about how we should proceed tomorrow. If we agree to the proposal which I have now made, the Government should understand that there is no undertaking or agreement from this side about how we should proceed tomorrow. Tomorrow we wish to see a proper discussion on the Amendments which deal with EFTA and the rights of the EFTA countries under the Bill, which we have not debated previously in the Committee. Thereafter we wish to have a debate on whether the Clause should stand part of the Bill, which would presumably start tomorrow. We do not, however, believe that that debate on this major Measure can be disposed of in anything like half a parliamentary day. It would require extensive debate. If that were not permitted, it would be an abrogation of the undertakings and suggestions and indications which were made earlier in the discussions.
I am not proposing that the Government should give any undertakings about what will happen here tomorrow. I am

just making clear to the Government our attitude towards the situation. I trust that if we agree to this proposal, which is not the one we had wished, but which would enable the Committee perhaps to have a considerable discussion on this group of Amendments and still get home a bit earlier than four or five o'clock in the morning, the Government will immediately give the undertaking that they will move the Motion to report progress immediately there is a vote on these Amendments.
We have gone very far in meeting the Government. It may be suggested that we have gone too far. [Hon. Members: "Yes."] I understand why my hon. Friends say that. I am doing it in order to protect what I believe is the far more extensive debate tomorrow which we must have on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Those who have followed the Bill carefully will see that the proposal I make is one which is best designed to protect the critical debates on that Question, which I believe it is essential for the Committee to have.

Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the proposition he has made about how we should proceed tonight. It is a very fair and reasonable proposition. No one wants to run the Committee ragged. As for tomorrow, we must see what progress we make.

Mr. Alex Eadie: Back benchers on this side cannot accept the undertaking given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which was given in very bad grace. I protest at the Government's arrogant display, particularly by the Leader of the House, who saw fit to laugh when we tried to exert our right as back benchers. The Government's arrogance on this Motion has done great harm to the House. Anyone listening to our debate on very important items of principle could only have felt very high regard for the standard of debate and for the Committee. But the Government are starting to behave very arrogantly. They are not concerned about back benchers' rights.
I am sorry to say that we have recently had a new Leader of the House. I would have hoped to hear him reminding the Committee that he is the custodian of


all hon. Members' rights, and not just trying to put the Government's view or trying to protect the Government.
Some of us are becoming a bit concerned about the Government's arrogance in many matters. In this debate some of us on the back benches have had to reprimand members of the Government who made "We are the masters now" speeches.
At the weekend I went into my constituency, where I was under great criticism because I sought to argue that what we wanted to try to do in this country was to bring back the politics of persuasion. I was told I was talking a lot of nonsense, because this Government will not listen to anybody. Things are happening that none of us can be very proud of. Some of us are mystified by what is happening outside today. The Government must take full responsibility for what is happening, since people are becoming disillusioned with the Government and believe that they are not prepared to listen.
The Government are arrogant in seeking to take away back benchers' rights. The Government should not seek to denigrate Parliament or seek to harm it. I am sure my hon. Friends feel that we should debate these matters at a more reasonable hour. I have as much experience of night shifts as anybody, and if we are required to debate these matters at these uncivilised times we shall be prepared to do so, but I am asking whether it is necessary. We are certainly not prepared to accept the so-called concession by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) about the Government's attitude to this matter as shown by the reply given to the Committee by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I did not expect the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give an undertaking about the business tomorrow. I was seeking to stress the importance which we attach to the debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
I say to my hon. Friends that I suppose we could continue to discuss the

Motion to report progress for an hour and a quarter before we get to the Closure, but I do not believe it would achieve anything. It would merely mean that we should get to the debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" an hour and a quarter later than otherwise would be the case. Along with my hon. Friends, I am in favour of teaching the Government a lesson on this matter, but I do not want the Committee to be in a position of having less time to discuss the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Orme: In those circumstances we might as well vote on the Amendments now. We shall not gain anything by debating them or carrying on with this debate. I am concerned that we may give way to the Government when some of us do not feel that they are in too strong a position.

Mr. Foot: If that were the situation no one would be happier than myself. If we were able to inflict a procedural defeat on the Government and hold up their business I would listen eagerly. Such points have not altogether escaped me but I do not believe that is the situation. I do not think we shall achieve anything of the sort. If it is agreed that I should withdraw the Motion, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) will move the Amendment and we will discuss it. We regard this group as being important, and even if we object to the hour we think a debate should take place. When we have debated the Amendments it will become more evident how important they are.
If we merely proceed with this debate we shall still have to debate the Amendments, but about an hour later. My hon. Friend's argument might apply in different circumstances; there may be circumstances when it would be advisable to take the matter through the night. We have to resist the scandalous attempt of the Government to discuss this through the night. We have an understanding from the Government—my hon. Friend says it is no concession—that they will not try to proceed further than this group of Amendments. There should be no misapprehension about the view we take on the Clause stand part debate.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: My hon. Friend says that if he withdraws the Motion we can have a full and extensive debate. What does he mean by that?

Mr. Foot: I am not certain because it depends on how many of my hon. Friends wish to speak, but my guess is that it would take about a couple of hours. At this moment we do not have a majority and we have to take that into account and use the situation to suit us. If my hon. Friends imagine that the procedure on the Bill has been conducted in a manner that has suited the Government I do not believe that the Government are likely to agree.
For those reasons I appeal to my hon. Friends to accept the course I have suggested. It is the best way in which we

can proceed not merely in our interests but in the interests of all those who wish to debate properly this group of Amendments and the Amendments we shall discuss tomorrow.

The Chairman: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he wishes to withdraw the Motion?

Mr. Foot: I wish on no account, Sir Robert, to withdraw the Motion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Pym): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Pym) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 199, Noes 141.

Division No. 130.]
AYES
[12.56 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lane, David


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fowler, Norman
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederiok


Atkins, Humphrey
Fox, Marcus
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gibson-Watt, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Longden, Gilbert


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Loveridge, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Luce, R. N.


Blaker, Peter
Goodhart, Philip
MacArthur, Ian


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Goodhew, Victor
McCrindle, R. A.


Body, Richard
Gorst, John
Mackintosh, John P.


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Gower, Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gray, Hamish
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Bowden, Andrew
Green, Alan
Madel, David


Bray, Ronald
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mather, Carol


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grylls, Michael
Mawby, Ray


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gummer, Selwyn
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gurden, Harold
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bryan, Paul
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Miscampbell, Norman


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell. Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Moate, Roger


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Havers, Michael
Monro, Hector


Churchill, W. S.
Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heseltine, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Clegg, Walter
Hiley, Joseph
Morrison, Charles


Cockeram, Eric
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mudd, David


Cooke, Robert
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Murton, Oscar


Coombs, Derek
Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey


Cordle, John
Holt, Miss Mary
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Normanton, Tom


Costain, A. P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Nott, John


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Onslow, Cranley


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hunt, John
Osborn, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
James, David
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Dean, Paul
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Parkinson, Cecil


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jessel, Toby
Pink, R. Bonner


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Jopling, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Drayson, G. B.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kershaw, Anthony
Ouennell, Miss J. M.


Dykes, Hugh
Kimball, Marcus
Raison, Timothy


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Redmond, Robert


Eyre, Reginald
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Farr, John
Kinsey, J. R.
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kitson, Timothy
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fidler, Michael
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Knox, David
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey




Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Ward, Dame Irene


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Warren, Kenneth


Rost, Peter
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M
Weatherill, Bernard


Royle, Anthony
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Sutcliffe, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wiggin, Jerry


Scott-Hopkins, James
Tebbit, Norman
Wilkinson, John


Sharples, Richard
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Tilney, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Simeons, Charles
Trafford. Dr. Anthony
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Skeet, T. H. H.
Tugendhat, Christopher
Younger, Hn George


Soref, Harold
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin



Speed, Keith
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Spence, John
Waddington, David
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Sproat, Iain
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Mr. John Stradling Thomas


Stainton, Keith
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Armstrong, Ernest
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Murray, Ronald King


Ashton, Joe
Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Gordon


Atkinson, Norman
Harper, Joseph
O'Halloran, Michael


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Malley, Brian


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Orme, Stanley


Bishop, E. S.
Horam, John
Oswald, Thomas


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Paget, R. T.


Booth, Albert
Huckfield, Leslie
Palmer, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pavitt, Laurie


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pentland, Norman


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hunter, Adam
Prescott, John


Cohen, Stanley
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Conlan, Bernard
John, Brynmor
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Judd, Frank
Sillars, James


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kerr, Russell
Small, William


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kinnock, Neil
Smith, John (Lanarkshire N.)


Deakins, Eric
Lambie, David
Spearing, Nigel


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Doig, Peter
Latham, Arthur
Stallard, A. W.


Dormand, J. D.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Driberg, Tom
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strang, Gavin


Duffy, A. E P.
Loughlin, Charles
Swain, Thomas


Dunn, James A.
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Tuck, Raphael


Edwards. William (Merioneth)
McElhone, Frank
Varley, Eric G.


Ellis, Tom
Mackenzie, Gregor
Wainwright, Edwin


English, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Evans, Fred
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ewing, Henry
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfleld, E.)
Wallace, George


Faulds, Andrew
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, David


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Marsden, F.
Whitehead, Phillip


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Whitlock, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mayhew, Christopher
Wilson. Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Foot, Michael
Meacher, Michael
Woof, Robert


Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert



Gilbert, Dr. John
Mendelson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gordon Walker. Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mikardo, Ian
Mr. John Golding and


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Millan, Bruce
Mr. James Wellbeloved.


Grant, John D. (Islington. E.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.



Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mitchell. R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 136, Noes 196.

Division No. 131.]
AYES
[1.6 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkinson, Norman
Booth, Albert


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Buchan, Norman


Armstrong, Ernest
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Ashton, Joe
Bishop, E. S.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)




Cohen, Stanley
Huckfield, Leslie
O'Halloran, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Malley, Brian


Concannon, J. D
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Orme, Stanley


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Osborn, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Paget, R. T.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Janner, Greville
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
John, Brynmor
Pentland, Norman


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Prescott, John


Deakins, Eric
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dempsey, James
Judd, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Doig, Peter
Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dormand, J. D.
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kinnock, Neil
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Driberg, Tom
Lambie, David
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamond, James
Sillars, James


Dunn, James A.
Latham, Arthur
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie, Alex
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Small, William


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Ellis, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Spearing, Nigel


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Fred
McCartney, Hugh
Stallard, A. W.


Ewing, Harry
McElhone, Frank
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Faulds, Andrew
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Strang, Gavin


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Swain, Thomas


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tinn, James


Foot, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Tuck, Raphael


Ford, Ben
Marquarrd, David
Varley, Eric G.


Gilbert, Dr. John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Wainwright, Edwin


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mayhew, Christopher
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Meacher, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wallace, George


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, John
Watkins, David


Hamling, William
Mikardo, Ian
Whitehead, Phillip


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Hardy, Peter
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Woof, Robert


Harper, Joseph
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)



Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. John Golding and


Horam, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. James Wellbeloved.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oakes, Gordon





NOES


Adley, Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Haselhurst, Alan


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Dean, Paul
Havers, Michael


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hawkins, Paul


Atkins, Humphrey
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hayhoe, Barney


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Heseltine, Michael


Balniel, Lord
Drayson, G. B.
Hiley, Joseph


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dykes, Hugh
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Blaker, Peter
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Holland, Philip


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)




Body, Richard
Eyre, Reginald
Holt, Miss Mary


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Farr, John
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bowden, Andrew
Fidler, Michael
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bray, Ronald
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hunt, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
James, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fortescue, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fowler, Norman
Jopling, Michael


Bryan, Paul
Fox, Marcus
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gibson-Watt, David
Kershaw, Anthony


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kimball, Marcus


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Glyn, Dr. Alan
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Chapman, Sydney
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Goodhart, Philip
Kinsey, J. R.


Churchill, W. S.
Gorst, John
Kitson, Timothy


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gower, Raymond
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gray, Hamish
Knox, David


Clegg, Walter
Green, Alan
Lane, David


Cockeram, Eric
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Langford-Hott, Sir John


Cooke, Robert
Grylls, Michael
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Coombs, Derek
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Le Marchant, Spencer


Cordle, John
Gurden, Harold
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Longden, Gilbert


Costain, A. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Loveridge, John


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Luce, R. N.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
MacArthur, Ian







McCrindle, R. A.
Pink, R. Bonner
Sutcliffe, John


McLaren, Martin
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Tebbit, Norman


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Madel, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Marten, Neil
Raison, Timothy
Tilney, John


Mather, Carol
Redmond, Robert
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Mawby, Ray
Reed, Laurance (Botton, E.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roes, Peter (Dover)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Waddington, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Ward, Dame Irene


Moate, Roger
Rost, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Royle, Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard


Monro, Hector
Scott, Nicholas
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Montgomery, Fergus
Scott-Hopkins, James
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sharples, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wilkinson, John


Morrison, Charles
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Mudd, David
Simeons, Charles
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Murton, Oscar
Skeet, T. H. H
Woodnutt, Mark


Neave, Airey
Soref, Harold
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Speed, Keith
Younger, Hn. George


Normanton, Tom
Spence, John



Nott, John
Sproat, Iain
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Onslow, Cranley
Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Osborn, John
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Mr. John Stradling Thomas.


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.



Parkinson, Cecil
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Question accordingly negatived.

[Mr. BREWIS in the Chair]

Mr. Arthur Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Brewis. I am in some difficulty in raising this point of order, but I mention it now as there may not be a suitable opportunity later. It concerns the action of the Chair in the last few minutes. The difficulty is that you were not at the time the occupant of the Chair. I do not know whether you were in the Chamber and were witness to the events that took place. But, as a back-bench Member, I should like some guidance from the Chair as to a ruling that was given a few minutes ago.

1.15 a.m.

At nine minutes past midnight my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) asked the then occupant of the Chair whether he would accept a Motion that the Committee should report progress. The then occupant of the Chair indicated that he was willing to accept such a Motion. We then spent some time in an exchange between the two Front Benches and in a limited number of contributions from the back benches on both sides of the Committee, but mostly from this side.

My query to the Chair is that when the Motion "That the Question be now put" was moved and accepted by the Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for

Ebbw Vale was seeking the Committee's permission to withdraw his Motion, and there were a number of objections and several of my hon. Friends were on their feet and wished to speak. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) was seeking to obtain some further explanation from my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale as to the reasons for his seeking to withdraw his Motion.

The point that concerns me as a backbench Member is that I did not understand that it was customary practice for the Chair to accept a Closure Motion, even on a Motion to report progress, within as limited a span of time as 46 minutes, most of which time had been taken up by spokesmen of both Front Benches, and when very little had been heard of the views of back-bench Members, particularly those who wished to contribute to the discussion of that Motion.

A further point of order is that, to avoid raising my point of order, I have sought guidance from my hon. Friends who have served in the House of Commons for much longer than I have, and what has been put to me, on which I should like further clarification from the Chair, is that if the Opposition spokesman who has moved such a Motion then wishes to withdraw it, this seems to imply that the rights of other back-bench Members disappear.

I ask, first, why does the Chair accept a Motion for Closure after only 46 minutes' debate when so few of us had a chance to take part in the discussion? Furthermore, is it not accepted that it is not simply the prerogative of one hon. Member to indicate that which he is convinced should now take place? Have not other hon. Members the right to express their views, to have them heard, and to have replies from both the mover of such a Motion and the Government, about whose peculiar undertakings many of us were complaining and wished to complain?

The Temporary Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for raising his point of order. I am sure that he will appreciate that it is always a difficult question for the discretion of the Chair when such a Motion is accepted, and that it must be left purely to the discretion of the Chairman when he does accept such a Motion. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to criticise any action of the Chairman, there are ways, within the rules of the House of Commons, within which he can do so. I am sorry that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman any further.

Mr. Latham: Further to that point of order—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but when I raised the point of order and received a lot of unwelcome assistance from hon. Members opposite that tended to make the point of order somewhat more difficult to express with the brevity I originally intended. All I wish to pursue—[Interruption.]—if I may be excused the contributions of hon. Members opposite and be allowed simply to address myself to the Chair—is that I genuinely seek guidance, as a back-bench Member. I understand that it is within the discretion of the Chair, but I have always been led to believe that the Chair generally acts according to custom and practice and that, whilst there may not be strict conventions, one has a reasonable idea from past practice and from the general conduct of all occupants of the Chair as to what time may be reasonably anticipated as permissible time in which to discuss a particular proposition. What I am seeking is guidance.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has put his point clearly. It is a point on which I cannot comment. It is some-

thing entirely within the discretion of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Yes, but further to that point of order, Mr. Brewis, you were not in the Chair when my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) moved the Motion. He said to the Chairman of Ways and Means that he hoped there would be a reasonable time for discussion—betwexen an hour and an hour and a quarter—and I noticed that the Chairman of Ways and Means made no adverse comment on that suggestion. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale knew, as most of us know, that an hour to an hour and a quarter is the usual precedent for that sort of Motion. If my hon. Friend looks that up, he will find it.

The Chairman: Once again, I cannot comment on the point the hon. Gentleman has made. I think we should move on to Amendment No. 40.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 2, line 23, at end add:
(5) The texts of the pre-accession treaties to which reference is made in subsection (2) above and which are described in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act are printed as Schedules to this Act.

The Chairman: With this we can discuss Amendment No. 151, in line 23, at end add:
(5) The texts of the treaty relating to the accession of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Authority signed at Brussels on 22nd January 1972 and the decision of the Council of the European Communities relating to the accession of the United Kingdom to the European Coal and Steel Community, which are referred to in subsection (2) above, are printed as Schedules to this Act.

Amendment No. 200, in line 23, at end add:

(5) The pre-accession treaties referred to in subsection (2) above are listed in Part I of Schedule 1 of this Act.

Amendment No. 101, in Clause 2, page 2, line 26, after 'Treaties' insert
'as are set out in Schedule 5 hereof'.

Amendment No. 102, in line 27, after 'Treaties', insert
'as specified in Schedule 6 hereof'.

Mr. Powell: On a point of order. I gather that this Amendment is grouped


with Nos. 151 and 200. I wonder whether, in your discretion, Mr. Brewis, you would permit a separate Division to take place on No. 200? The reason is that this raises a substantially narrower point than the two other Amendments, a point on which a different view might be taken by some right hon. and hon. Members of the Committee from that which they would take on other Amendments in the group.
I hope, therefore, that you feel that, although Amendment No. 200 has not been previously indicated for Division, you would be able, on those grounds, to allow a separate Division when the debate on the Amendment comes to an end.

The Chairman: It is not within my competence to tell the right hon. Member whether a Division will take place on that, but I will bring his remarks to the attention of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Sir Elwyn Jones: The purpose of Amendment No. 40 with Amendment No. 151 is to remedy what I submit is a serious defect in this Bill: its failure to ensure that its material provisions will be accessible to and reasonably available to those who will be concerned with it.
Since I have been in the House—and that goes back a very long time—a perennial theme when we have considered new legislation has been to express strong objection to the practise of legislation by reference, and that is because the practise of legislating by reference tends to make confusion worse confounded and makes the task of understanding the new provisions of a Bill much more difficult by making it more necessary to seek out what is contained in the Statute to which reference is made.
Sometimes in some legislation more than one Statute or part of a Statute is referred to. For instance, there were many cries of complaint from the other side when it was my task to deal with the Rent Bill in the last Parliament. There, it is true, there was legislation by reference to two or three previous Rent Acts.
I remember vividly also complaints of that kind when we were debating the Leasehold Reform Bill, and particularly

a paragraph in a Schedule which said that for the purposes of the Bill a church was a railway because it was a reference to an earlier Rating Act.
Complaint about legislation by reference has rightly been voiced throughout the decades, but the sort of difficulty which arose in those Bills is nothing compared with the problems that we are faced with by reason of the form and content of this Bill. I can see massive difficulties to members of the public who will try to understand what it is all about, to lawyers who will have to advise members of the public, to judges who will have to interpret and apply Community law and, finally, to Members of Parliament themselves, to whom the public ought to be able to look to see that the law is good law and capable of being understood.
To carry out our responsibilities as Members of Parliament is difficult enough with straightforward legislation, but I submit that those difficulties are nothing to what we are confronted with here and will be confronted with so long as we remain members of the Community if the Bill is passed. I submit that the Bill presents the Committee with the most massive piece of legislation by reference ever known in our long legislative history, and certainly the most momentous and most far-reaching in its consequences.
It is not two or three legal instruments, as in the Rent Acts, that we are having to deal with and that are referred to in Clauses 1 and 2 and sought to be brought into our law, but more than 100, in a Bill which is as broad as it is short. What the Government seek to do is to achieve their purpose not by scheduling or annexing the relevant treaties. What the Bill does is merely to identify by a title and date six of the treaties in Schedule 1, Part I, and then there follows the astonishing paragraph 7 which adds to the identified list of six pre-accession treaties the words:
Any treaty entered into before the 22nd January 1972 by any of the Communities (with or without any of the member States) or, as a treaty ancillary to any treaty included in this Part of this Schedule, by the member States (with or without any other country).
As I understand it, there are 109 of these treaties and they are in the 10 volumes of Community treaties and related instruments. They are not listed in


the Bill, or even identified in it, and yet, along with the other six treaties, the Community law which this massive corpus of legal instruments creates is not only made above all our law, at a stroke to coin a phrase, but, as I understand it, is apparently to have precedence over our own internal law in case of conflict.
Clause 2 provides that all the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under those treaties are to be recognised and available in law and to be enforced, allowed and followed without further enactment. That, I submit, in the circumstances of the form and content of the Bill is the most brazen piece of legislation by reference that any Government have ever attempted to inflict on Parliament.

1.30 a.m.

It will be said, no doubt, and it is the case, that when we make international treaties and conventions part of our law they are not always scheduled or annexed to the revelant Bill. But the process is often carried out in respect of international agreements infinitely less important and less significant in their impact on our law than the Community treaties.

There are many examples in post-war years. Schedule 1 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1961, sets out the relevant convention, in both English and French. That conjures up interesting reminiscences as to the meaning of aura à coeurin our earlier deliberations. The Arbitration Act, 1951, schedules conventions, and there is a similar scheduling in the Geneva Act, 1957, and the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act, 1966. None of those Acts is comparable in significance or importance with this one. It is the Government's duty to schedule treaties of this importance.

No doubt it will be said that this would be very inconvenient and would make the 1972 volume of Statutes far more bulky. It would, but that is an inadequate answer. I understand that a new edition of Statutes in force is being published in groups, by subject matter, and there should be no difficulty in including the Bill in the form suggested.

But any administrative or practical difficulties are trivial compared with the mischief of making it intolerably difficult

for the public, legal practitioners and judges to discover the relevant Community law and to discover where it can be found. The place for that community law, if it is to become part of our law, is on the Statute Book. Bits of information there will be, of course, but the bulk of Community law will not be found in the Bill. Those concerned will have to look outside the normal sources of the law in this country for enlightenment.

I am particularly concerned about the judges. As Professor Wade points out in a striking article in today's The Times, it will fall to them to apply Community law and to determine, for instance, as the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said on Second Reading, what would happen if a future Act produced an irreconcilable conflict with Community law to be found in the pre-accession treaty. No answer has been given to that. We may have to go into it in detail, in particular on Clause 3. The judges, however, will face great difficulties in the tasks they have to perform in applying and construing this Community law. It will be hard enough without adding to the problems created by having to rely on this amorphous bulk of treaties existing in detached limbo.

I have wondered whether the Government have done this purposely to prevent what is involved in this legislation becoming fully known, whether they have done it to limit the possibility of detailed discussion of the relevant treaties that are being introduced into our law. Whether that is their motive or not, however, I submit that the public and Members of Parliament are entitled to have those treaties clearly made part of the Bill and that the appropriate way of doing so is to schedule them to the Bill.

Mr. Deakins: There are five Amendments before the Committee, and, although they are all mainly on the same subject they are, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) pointed out, slightly different. Amendments Nos. 40 and 151 ask that the texts of the Community treaties should be set out as annexes to the Bill. Amendment No. 200, in the names of myself and some of my hon. Friends, asks merely that there be a list of the titles of the treaties set out in Schedule 1 to the


Bill. In addition there are Amendments Nos. 101 and 102. The former refers to the fact that the treaties should be set out in a Schedule. I am not sure whether that means the texts or merely a list. Amendment No. 102 uses a different form of words: that the treaties should be specified in another Schedule to the Bill.
I think that all four expressions—texts, lists, setting out and specifying—mean roughly the same thing: that we do not think there is sufficient information in the Bill so that when it becomes law members of the public, apart from members of the legal profession, certainly all those affected by the wide-ranging provisions of the Bill, will be able to know exactly which piece of Continental legislation in the form of the treaties in the 10 volumes we have considered on and off will necessarily affect them. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) pointed out, it will be very difficult even for the legal profession necessarily to know which treaties apply and where to lay hands on them.
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that it is surely unprecedented in a Bill—a would-be Act of Parliament—that we should have a statement of the kind which appears in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1, which is vague indeed and possibly open to misinterpretation. If we do not say exactly which treaties are to be regarded as Community treaties but merely use a blanket phrase, as is used in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1, we are not doing our job properly as a Committee of the House in ensuring that, whatever our views on the rights and wrongs of the legislation, when eventually it gets completely through the parliamentary process it shall be intelligible and not in any way liable to confuse or mislead either the public or the legal profession.
It cannot be argued that paragraph 7 is there because the treaties are too trivial and numerous to bother to list and that listing them would unduly lengthen the Bill. I am not sure whether this argument will be adduced by the Chancellor of the Duchy. If it is, I will anticipate it.
Although it is clear that some of the treaties are minor and trivial and, there-

fore, may not be considered by those who wish to take Britain into the Community to be worthy of inclusion in an Act of Parliament—I could instance a large number of these which were set out in one of the annexes to the Treaty of Accession—nevertheless a large number of treaties are very important. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the first six paragraphs of Schedule 1 set out the really important treaties—the Treaty of Rome, the Paris Treaty, the Luxembourg Treaty on Financing, and so on—and the rest are not considered to be of sufficient importance to warrant setting them out. That cannot be the case.
I will deal with that point by taking only one of the 10 volumes of the treaties and taking a few examples there from. Can it be honestly claimed that matters such as the two conventions in 1968 on matters affecting the civil law in Britain are not sufficiently important to warrant scheduling in a separate paragraph of Schedule 1? There is the convention of September, 1968, on jurisdiction and the enforcement of civil and commercial judgments. I am not a lawyer, but can it be argued that such a convention, which under the peculiar language we have to use in dealing with Community matters is a treaty, because it is an international agreement, is unimportant, particularly when it takes up 26 pages of volume 5 and deals with a very large number of matters relating to the enforcement of civil and commercial judgments as between one Community member and another and when it is something that we must accept without question?
Further, Clause 3 seeks to specify certain requirements of the United Kingdom legal system in connection with the adoption of future Community law and past Community law. Therefore, if the general legal issue of carrying into effect Community law is considered important enough—as I am sure the Committee will agree that it is—to warrant a separate Clause, surely a treaty which has a bearing on that legal system and the way in which it will have to operate in future should at least be considered to be of sufficient importance to be scheduled and listed separately.
There was a convention in February, 1968, on the mutual recognition of companies and bodies corporate. From the commercial point of view—after all, we


are told that one of the major reasons for going into the Common Market is the alleged commercial advantage—such a treaty is of major importance to a very large section of the British community. Yet there is no direct mention of it in Schedule 1 as drafted.
Further, the Government themselves recognise the importance of the effect of Community legislation on our company law by the fact that there is a separate Clause—Clause 9—dealing with various matters of changes which are required to be made in our existing company legislation.
One would have thought, therefore—not that this convention should have been embodied as a separate Clause; none of the Amendments goes that far; it would be going too far to ask for that—that a convention which is of great importance to the future commercial life of Britain if we join the Common Market should at least be listed separately.

1.45 a.m.

I want to conclude this part of my remarks with two other examples which have been mentioned on a number of occasions, also in volume 5. We have that famous final communiqué of the Hague Conference in December, 1969, where a large number of decisions were taken, not merely those which affected the opening of negotiations between the Community and the applicant States. No one in his right mind could possibly expect that this communiqué was so trivial that it should not even be mentioned. It is most certainly on a par with the Treaty of Rome, the Treaty of Paris and the Luxembourg Agreement.

Surely the resolution of the Council of Representatives of the Governments of Member States of March, 1971, about economic and monetary union is, above all, as important as, if not more important than, any of the six treaties and agreements which are set out in Schedule 1? Therefore, I do not think that the Government can possibly claim, if they are going to resist in particular Amendment No. 200, that the compendious nature of paragraph 7 embraces, by and large, treaties which are trivial, because this is not the case. Surely when these Community treaties become law in this country it would be in accordance with all our traditions that they should be in the Act of Parliament which gives

them legal effect, at least in name if not in content.

I do not know—perhaps my legal friends could advise me—whether there are any precedents for treating legislation in this way. By legislation I am referring to Community treaties, which are a future form of legislation for this country. Some of the treaties which will become law under Schedule 1 are not in the 10 volumes. The Government might say that anyone who wants to know what the treaties are should purchase, at an exhorbitant cost the 10 volumes where many of the official texts are set out. But there are a number of treaties and arrangements made since November, 1971, which will need in some way to be published, and I would have thought that the safe way of proceeding was to ensure that all treaties affecting the legislation and constitutional processes of this country should be set out in Schedule 1.

I wish to refer briefly to the other Amendments which go wider than Amendment No. 200 and relate to the text of the treaties being set out in the index to the Bill. First, I must deal with "official" and "authentic" texts. The Chancellor of the Duchy when discussing this on a previous occasion would make no distinction between the two words, but he implied in response to an interjection from this side of the House that there was some distinction. Could he tell us what the distinction is or whether the two words are interchangeable?

But, whether it is "official" or "authentic", we understand from what has been said by the Government that none of this legislation will become law in this country until we have passed the Bill and it has received the Royal Assent and until it has been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. In that case we have a fair amount of time to amend Schedule 1. It would not take very long. The Government have already done it as an annex to the Treaty of Accession. There seems to be no reason why it should not have been done in Schedule 1. If there is any dispute about the validity of the texts, such disputes would be resolved. If the text were set out authoritatively as an annex to an Act there could be no dispute.

It may be suggested that there would not be any dispute because we have some of the treaties set out in the various volumes published a couple of months ago, but it has been pointed out that there have been over the past 10 years at least two semi-official versions of the Treaty of Rome in English, and they differ somewhat. Surely, therefore, from a legal point of view, if no other, we should have authentic texts in a place where people can see them and know that they are authentic? We would not countenance having different versions of an Act, particularly if it had to be translated into a foreign language. We would make certain that there was only one official and authentic translation.

Although under the Bill treaties are in future automatically to have the force of law, just as an Act does now, the position under our present constitutional practice, as I understand it, is that treaties should be enacted in some form. They do not automatically become the law of our land until Parliament has passed a Bill which more or less enacts them in the language of an Act. Therefore, whether they be about setting out the texts or listing the treaties, these are not a series of trivial Amendments which the Government can reject just like that, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster perhaps suggested earlier. I hope they will take the points raised and realise that we are on not a political point, not an anti-European point, not an anti-Common Market point but a point of clarification, a good Committee point which will enable us to ensure that there is no confusion, that there is complete clarification of what we mean by Community treaties and that no one, whether a judge, a director of a company or the ordinary citizen, can be in any doubt what is the law and where it is set out.

Mr. Powell: I have great sympathy with the plea made by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham. South (Sir Elwyn Jones) in moving his Amendment. It was a proposition in the main highway of legislation that that which by reference is to become part of the law should be available as part of the Statutes or uniform with the Statutes and, if possible, attached to them.
I suppose, however, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the

Duchy of Lancaster is bound to refer to the immense bulk which would be added to the Bill, if it ever becomes an Act, by compliance with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's request. Judgments may vary as to what is the permissible bulk of a Schedule to a Statute. I do not know how the bulk of these treaties compares with the length of the Book of Common Prayer. The Book of Common Prayer is a Schedule to an Act of Parliament; namely, the Act of Uniformity, 1662. It may be that a comparison between the length of that document and this would not be too disproportionate. But if my right hon. and learned Friend is to rely on length and bulk in rejecting what he must surely otherwise accept—namely, the plea of the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South—I must point out that this ground itself throws into relief the unique and novel character of what we are doing.
Under Clause 2, to which the Committee has not yet come, the mere fact of a document being a treaty gives it and its consequences a validity in law and a direct operation on the citizens of this country. There cannot be many parallels in earlier treaties which have not been scheduled to the Acts which give them the force of law in this country.
In whatever way my right hon. and learned Friend deals with Amendment No. 40, we shall have to conclude that we shall be left with a symptom of the far-reaching inconveniences which this kind of legislation will involve in future for the people of this country.
Amendment No. 200 has a much narrower ambit, and, if it cannot be accepted in its present form, effect surely can be given to it. It is a request that the treaties should all be set out by name and should be identified in a schedule to the Bill. This surely is an irreducible minimum requirement.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) has given a number of reasons to show that these important treaties are deserving of specification as well as those which appear in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1. Another reason why it is essential that all the treaties which come under the definition should be specified in the Schedule is that if this is not done, then nobody will be sure what they are.
I wish to refer to two replies on this matter given by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. On 8th March in answering the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South he said:
I wish to respond to that"—
which refers to the question of how past treaties should be identified.
They are, of course, identified with the principal accession treaties by reference to the categories listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1"—
that is the first six paragraphs, and he went on:
…and the seventh category is listed by reference to the Appendix of the first volume of the Accession Treaty…"—[Official Report, 8th March, 1972;Vol. 832, c. 1532.]
That takes one to the appendix and to the list set out on eight or nine pages of the appendix to the Accession Treaty, in part I of Cmnd. 4862. The unsuspecting might assume that all that was necessary was to take the instruments listed in the appendix and to add them to Part I of Schedule 1 of the Bill.
2.0 a.m.
Not so. Complete uncertainty still reigns after the debates we have had as to which of the instruments in the appendix are or are not treaties within the meaning of Schedule 1.This was made clear on 15th March by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I will not weary the Committee by giving all the examples of uncertainty which he admitted, but I will quote a couple. He said:
The matters to which my right hon. Friend"—
I think that was me—
referred on page 141…are probably not treaties but are no more than related instruments.
This really is a remarkable position in which the Committee finds itself. Here is the legal adviser of the Government and the Committee who cannot be sure whether the document listed in the appendix is or is not a treaty. It is not just a question of reluctance on the part of my right hon. and learned Friend to take up five or six pages of the Bill by setting out an undisputed list of pre-accession treaties, other than the six set out in the first six paragraphs; he does not know. We have the preposterous

result that the Committee is being asked later, in Clause 2, to give the force of law to the consequences of treaties the very identity of which is not certain in the minds of the Government's legal advisers.
As another example, the Solicitor-General said:
The two on page 144 are agreements, and probably international agreements and, therefore, treaties depending on the status of the organisations there listed."—[Official Repo Rt, 15th March, 1972; Vol. 833, c. 615.]
I emphasise that these cases are taken at random by me from several which were given at random by my hon. and learned Friend. My hon. and learned Friend is in ignorance and uncertain whether one of the instruments is or is not one of the pre-accession treaties. He is not sure whether they are international agreements. Without being sure of that, he cannot be sure whether they are treaties. We cannot possibly leave it like this.
I do not think my right hon. and learned Friend could possibly defend a Bill which refers to treaties the total list of which is not only not set out in the Bill but is not capable of being known by the Committee or subsequently by the public because on the confession of the Government's legal adviser he does not know. It must be cleared up. The Law Officers must decide. They must take responsibility for deciding which instruments in their opinion are treaties, or, alternatively, ought to be treated as treaties for the purpose of the Bill. They must then list those instruments and treaties and expand paragraph 7 of Part I of Schedule 1 so that treaties which are to be pre-accession treaties for the purposes of the Bill appear on the face of the Act, if it ever becomes an Act.
It would be impossible to ask the Committee to add to the Bill a Schedule the meaning and extent of which is unknown to the Government or to leave a subsequent adjudication on this important issue perhaps to the courts, perhaps to the courts of the Community. It could be important for individual citizens to know which treaties and instruments have the effect given to pre-accession treaties by the terms of the Clause.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to address himself not only to the major


point of the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South but to the narrower and much more precise and demanding issue raised by Amendment No. 200. It is probable that my right hon. and learned Friend will have to ask for time. This is clearly a matter which will have to be sorted out. The least my right hon. and learned Friend can do is to admit that there must be a list of the pre-accession treaties which is open to no doubt or query, and, if there is to be such a list, there is no reason why it should not form part of the First Schedule to the Bill.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I do not speak at this late hour with any great enthusiasm, and if I am rather tart in my advocacy of the Amendments the Committee will understand that we have been through an exhausting and important debate. If hon. Members think that the possibility of an advisory referendum is an unthought-of constitutional innovation and come in large numbers to debate it, they must be equally aware of the importance and constitutional significance of this group of Amendments.
I asked the Solicitor-General why he could not have produced a Bill which set out, albeit in extenso, the terms and provisions of the accession treaties, easily understandable and not wrapped up in highly condensed and dehydrated legal jargon. I have yet to hear from him or his right hon. and learned Friend why that has not happened. The major part of Clause 1 is concerned with the main Community treaties, their powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions, lock, stock and barrel. They become for all practical purposes part of the statute law of the realm. That being so there is no reason why the terms of the Community treaties should not become part of the Bill.
This is our very argument about the conversion mechanism. Even to those who believe in going into the Common Market on the terms negotiated, the Government are almost denying the possibility of conversion Statutes. We can do that at this stage if we wish because the treaty has not been ratified, but the Government are excluding even the main

terms of the treaties from the Bill. I see no reason for this. There is perhaps the unworthy reason that our Statutes, Schedules and Statutory Instruments are not easily understood by those to whom they apply.
Any member of the public going into his local public library—an example I have used before—will be foxed by a great deal of our legislation. Those of us who are perhaps a little more used to dealing with it can get to grips with it relatively easily, at least with the cross-referencing, the idea of sections, subsections, schedules and the cross-referencing of enactments, even if we cannot understand the English, so-called, written into them.
But we are trying to marry together two types of legislation—the sort we have in the Community and the sort we are used to here. We are asking that the part to which the Government wish us to be espoused should be spelt out, something we have not got in the Bill as drafted. We have our own familiar legal enactments but we have not got the equivalent and important parts of the treaties, not even extracts of the more important parts. They come in a descending order—articles,annexes, statements, letters and the rest. No wonder the Solicitor-General does not know where one category ends and another begins. We are thus in the difficulty outlined by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
This illustrates my point that the sort of legislation which the Community has is of a different character in terms of interlocking substances. Later, perhaps we can put some examples of the difficulties we have in passing from one document to another. Even those of us who have been involved in this Committee for many hours find it almost impossible to sort out this mass of documentation, even after spending hours trying to do so. How the ordinary man or even the ordinary lawyer is to cope, I do not know. By this Amendment we should be simplifying it a little by putting the main parts of the treaties in the enactment so that they would become, as they will be anyway, part of our Statute law.
Perhaps the Government wish this great and difficult system of Statutes to be difficult for ordinary people to under-


stand. I suggest that it would perhaps not have been difficult to put into the Bill some of the key articles of the Rome Treaty. For example, Article 3 (f) says:
the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted.
Sub-paragraph (h) says:
the approximation of the laws of Member States to the extent required for the proper functioning of the common market.
These are two key parts of Article 3.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman may say that we cannot put in any of the articles. Why not? Each of them will have force comparable to that of any Section of many Acts of the House of Commons. If the Government are sincere in their wish to let everyone know what is perfectly clear, they would have put in, if not all the articles, at least the most important parts which will be referred to by members of the public or by lawyers.
2.15 a.m.
The second group of Amendments concerns the listing of the Schedules. There are over 100 treaties to which we are to be bound in the Bill and which are not even mentioned in the Schedules. I can understand the Government's reasons for not setting them out in the Bill. That is what Schedules are for. But paragraph 7 in Part I of Schedule 1 says:
Any treaty entered into before the 22nd January 1972 by any of the Communities…
It does not even differentiate between those which are with the consent of member States and those which are not, and, as we have discovered in dealing with Clause 1, that is a very important distinction. There is not even any distinction made in this paragraph. It is all in brackets as though it is merely by the way. But we know that it is not and that there is a very important distinction between them.
I do not understand why the treaties cannot be listed. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West referred to the appendix in the Treaty of Accession volume. They are also listed in the first volume of the European Communities Treaties and Related Instruments. I cannot quote any number. That is the

almost farcical stage that we have reached. However, hon. Members will know the document to which I refer.
In the preface on page 1, it says:
The following list indicates where English texts of Community treaties and related instruments are to be found either in the present series"—
that is, the 10 volumes of treaties—
or elsewhere.
The appendix to the Accession Treaties lists them but does not give the details. This document which purports to say where they are obtainable says in the introduction that
related instruments are to be found either in the present series or elsewhere.
They are not even in the series of volumes that we have been given.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster looks puzzled. He is not half as puzzled as some hon. Members have been. Yet the Government come forward with this serious piece of legislation which is taking legislative powers from the House of Commons, and they are not even doing it in a decent way in the legislative instrument that they put forward. We have inexactitude, muddle and mess.
Even if these Amendments cannot be accepted, they give the Government an opportunity to say why they cannot do what we ask. I cannot conceive of any reason why the Schedule should not contain the names of the hundred-odd treaties to which we are bound by the Bill. The conduct of the Government is wholly in character with the way in which the Bill is drafted.
I leave it at that. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that our proceedings earlier and the nonsense with which we are confronted in this documentation do not bode well for fraternal across-the-Floor exchanges during the remainder of this Committee stage.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I wish to support Amendment No. 40. My object in doing so is to suggest that there is another reason why these treaties should be annexed or scheduled to the Bill. If they were scheduled, we should have an opportunity of discussing the various articles of the treaties. The Government would not like that, of course. However,


they are introducing legislation into this country without going through the normal parliamentary procedures in relation to legislation. These treaties will form part of the law of the land, and the regulations made under them will become binding on the British people without any parliamentary process of scrutiny after the regulations have been issued in Brussels.
The Government have always said that it is not necessary, as it were, to incorporate these treaties into the law of the land, because the constitutional doctrine is that the Crown concludes treaties by reason of its prerogative powers and that all that is necessary is that there should be a kind of nuts-and-bolts Bill, such as we have here, to incorporate into the law the necessary changes to enable our domestic law to follow and obey the changes carried out by the provisions in the treaties.
I do not want to go over that kind of argument again tonight. I do not fully accept the Government's view on the constitutional position. However, if the Government were right on the general basis, I submit that the treaties are wholly different, because they are not only the primary sources of legislation and create liabilities and obligations in themselves, but they are a source of secondary, massive legislation emanating from Brussels which will not go through the House of Commons in the normal and accustomed form.
Therefore, we are not dealing with the normal kind of treaty. For instance, the United Nations Charter does not impose obligations and liabilities on individuals in this country. I do not purport to know the full details of the NATO Treaty, but I should not think that it imposes obligations or lays down a framework whereby obligations can be imposed upon individual citizens in this country rather than upon Government. That is the normal kind of treaty to which we have been accustomed—a treaty primarily establishing obligations upon Governments. Consequential Amendments in our law may be necessary, but we are dealing with something quite different.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Powell) put it very well when he said that this was

prerogative legislation. It is treaty legislation, because the treaties are different. Indeed, I believe that it is part of the general deception which has been perpetrated upon people in Western Europe to suggest that this is a matter of treaties between different countries, with the Heads of States agreeing, and that nothing more needs to be done. However, the Bill introduces legislation into this country without its going through the normal parliamentary process.
Most of the articles of the treaties have not been debated, but they could be debated if they were incorporated into the Schedules as an annex to the Bill.
I will illustrate what I mean by giving an example of special concern to the area which I have the honour to represent dealing with regional development aids and incentives. Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome lays down what a Government can and cannot do in giving inducements to particular areas. I will not go into the matter in detail except to say that this article has not been debated on the Floor of the House of Commons. Hon. Members representing constituencies such as mine have not had satisfactory answers from the Government on these matters. We have raised these questions, but we have not had the answers because the machinery does not exist to provide them.
According to Article 92, it is possible to give aid to areas where there is under-employment. I have looked at the French text to see whether there is any magic in the word "under-employment" as opposed to "unemployment". Economists tell me that there is a difference. We learn that the whole of the incentive policy of the Communities is geared towards alleviating under-employment in agricultural areas in Europe where people eke out an existence by temporary and seasonal work on the land, whereas our problem in industrial areas is unemployment as a result of the decline of our industries.
This is the kind of point which we put forward in the two lengthy debates which we had on principle before the Bill was introduced. We did not get an answer, because that kind of debate did not provide the framework within which an answer could be given. The Minister who spoke in one of the debates was not


even winding-up; he was intervening in the debate. We never got an answer for that reason. If the articles were scheduled to the Bill, these matters could be discussed. It is very important, in the interests of parliamentary democracy, to which all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate today subscribe, that this should be done. The Government should have introduced a Bill in which these provisions were annexed and could be debated.
It would not be a particularly impractical thing to do. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West mentioned, I think, the Act of Uniformity. Perhaps that was significant because some of us see the European Communities Bill as an act of uniformity. In the part of the country which I represent we dislike uniformity, because in matters of religion, culture and language the imposition of uniformity has caused grave danger to certain social factors and our way of life. But that is mere digression.
It would not be difficult to annex these treaties. They have been printed and published. All that would have to be done would be to attach them saying that they are annexes to the legislation, part of the Statute. If that had been done we could have debated them. But the Government do not want to do that because they want to get the Bill through as quickly as possible. This is another instance of the deceit. I am sorry to have to use that word. I am a new Member of the House and the impression that I have gained since this legislation was introduced is not favourable; it is not favourable to parliamentary democracy. Hon. Members who have been in Parliament for much longer than myself have been waxing eloquent today about our parliamentary democracy. Perhaps some of us who will still be Members in 10 or 15 years' time will not forget what we have seen in the last few months and how this legislation, on this important issue, has been pushed through Parliament.
If the Government are concerned about democratic processes and parliamentary democracy, let them schedule and annex these treaties, articles and provisions to the Bill. We can then discuss them and vote upon them. Our constituents will then feel that at least

we have done our best to represent their interests in Parliament as we should.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain to me why the treaties cannot be published in the Bill so that we can discuss them and so that the public may know what is in them? That seems to me to be the point, and it is quite reasonable.

Mr. Rippon: I will do my best to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison). At least he made his point as clearly and concisely as anyone could conceivably hope for.
All these Amendments call for the scheduling of additional material to the Bill. Amendment No. 40 would add as Schedules to the Bill the full texts of all the treaties listed in Part I of Schedule 1—that is, the pre-accession treaties. These would include not only the European Economic Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community treaties but also all the treaties which have been entered into by any of the Communities and treaties ancillary to the main treaties which have been entered into by the member States.
Amendment No. 151 would schedule the Accession Treaty and the decision of the Council dealing with United Kingdom accession to the European Coal and Steel Community. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) referred to the bulk of the treaties that would be added to the Bill, and this is certainly a factor to be borne in mind, remembering that the texts are available. On the other hand, there is a distinction which one must accept, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, between those Amendments and Amendment No. 200, which would add to Part I of Schedule 1 the title of any treaty entered into by any of the Communities. I accept that the purpose of these Amendments is to make clear on the face of the Bill itself exactly what commitments the United Kingdom is entering into.
2.30 a.m.
The statement of purpose which we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee covers much of the same ground as did the debate on 6th


March on the Opposition Motion of censure on the Government for the framing of the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General went over much of this ground very fully, as reported at cols. 1158–1160 of the Official Report.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) spoke of the convenience of the public, legal practitioners and others. That is undoubtedly a factor which must be borne in mind.
My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General on the former occasion emphasied the practical considerations which the Government had in mind and the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South drew attention to differing practice on various Bills which had been before Parliament. As my hon. and learned Friend said on 6th March,
Whether to schedule a treaty to a Bill is determined largely by how best provisions affecting changes in the law of the country can be made available to the people concerned. In many cases it is convenient for the relevant new part of United Kingdom law to be made available in that way. In others it is not so convenient and other methods are adopted. The European Free Trade Area Act did not proceed in that way. It proceeded by using regulations and other powers made under other Acts and provided for in that Act.
The reason why the matter was handled this way was clearly foreshadowed by the Government of which the right hon. and learned Member was a member.
He went on to say:
It was made clear in that debate that the way in which the treaties, the regulations, and the whole Community law would be made available would be by their publication in the form in which they have been published, for them to be available to the public in that way. It has never been suggested that the treaties, or any part of them, would be scheduled to the Bill. The way that we are proceeding has always been foreseen as appropriate in connection with our accession to the Community."—[Official Report, 6th March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 1159.]
On the question of the scheduling of treaties, the inclusion of the text of treaties not susceptible to amendment by the United Kingdom Parliament would be inappropriate, and not simply because it would make the Bill unmanageable but it would be unnecessary because the treaties have been published and are easily accessible to Parliament and the public.

Mr. Deakins: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted from the remarks of the Solicitor-General who was surely, in the matter of scheduling the treaties, in the context of that debate, dealing with whether the texts should be available and was not addressing himself to the purposes of Amendment No. 200, which merely proposes that in place of the compendious nature of paragraph 7 of Schedule 1, we should have an authentic list of treaties which come within the Bill and the texts of which become part of our law.

Mr. Rippon: I was considering the question of the scheduling of treaties in full as suggested in Amendments Nos. 40 and 151. Amendment No. 200 is more restrictive in its scope, and the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) asked me what distinction one could make between what was an authentic text and what was an official text.
The main historic treaties are in authentic texts and have already been published. The appendix to the Treaty of Accession volume lists the treaties within Schedule 1 to the Bill. Official texts of these treaties have been published. Volume 1 of the 10 volumes of treaties shows where the official texts are. If any of these treaties have to be treated as authentic for legal purposes, clearly an authentic text of each treaty in question will have to be published, but there is no question of such legal effect before accession. After accession there will be authentic texts in English all the time and they will be published in the Official Journal.

Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that there need be no authentic text at the time when the House legislates on the basis of these treaties?

Mr. Rippon: We have the authentic texts of the historic treaties. We have official texts of the other documents. There may be a distinction between the two in the period between now and accession, but there cannot be such a distinction if any question of legal action arises thereafter.
We are in the difficulty, which many of us regret, that the Community has been in existence for a long time and has been engaged in a great many acts of one kind


or another. It is impossible to publish an authentic text of everything which the Community has done in the last 10 years.
That brings up again the question which my right hon. Friend raised about how far the list of treaties is complete and why cannot we be certain which of the agreement sin the list are treaties. I submit to the Committee that in all the circumstances the inclusion in the Bill of the details of any treaty entered into by any of the Communities is unnecessary, in so far as the titles appear in the appendix to the White Paper containing the Treaty of Accession, which is Cmnd. 4862, Volume I. The texts of the instruments listed in the appendix to the White Paper have also been published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
We went carefully into the list with the Commission and with the Council Secretariat's legal advisers. The list which we published in the White Paper was drawn up with them and it is to the best of our knowledge and belief as comprehensive as it is possible to make it at present. In so far as there can be any doubt about whether these are treaties or not, as my right hon. Friend knows there is a provision in Clause 1 (3) to deal with that situation.

Mr. Jay: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman give any other examples of legislation by reference to WhitePapers—that is to say, where one has to read a White Paper to see what the legislation means?

Mr. Rippon: What has been asked for is a list. That list is available, and this seems to be a proper way of dealing with the situation, bearing in mind the difficulty of the Community having been in existence for 10 years. There may be a slight possibility, but at any rate a possibility which one must acknowledge, that something might be omitted which ought to have been included, or something included which ought to have been omitted. If there was any doubt after accession, these matters would have to be determined by the courts, but there is no reason to suppose that the lists are not complete or that the House of Commons and the practitioners will not have before them all the information that can conceivably be provided. In those circumstances, I suggest that the Amendments are unnecessary and ought to be resisted.

Sir Elwyn Jones: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the White Paper, to which White Paper was he referring in that context? Was he referring to the annex to the Treaty of Accession volume which has been printed, or to what? It seems an extraordinary way of proceeding. Why does not the Minister list the documents or the treaties? This is not a great demand to make. What is the trouble? Why should it not be done?

Mr. Powell: Before my right hon. and learned Friend replies, may I put this to him? He referred to Clause 1 (3) and said that an Order in Council under that subsection could make it clear if necessary whether all the instruments specified in the appendix were or were not pre-accession treaties for the purpose of the Bill. Is he saying that, immediately after the enactment of the Bill, an Order in Council comprehensive in character and setting out authoritatively the remainder of the pre-accession treaties will be presented to the House? Or is he saying that it may or may not happen? If he is saying the latter, the matter will still be left unresolved. If he is saying the former, and a comprehensive and authoritative list can be drawn up, why cannot such a list be put into the Schedule?

Mr. Rippon: To deal first with the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South, the titles already appear in the appendix to the White Paper which contains the treaty itself, which is Cmnd. 4862, Vol. I. Then the instruments listed in the White Paper have been published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
In reply to my right hon. Friend, the provision in Clause 1(3)enables a pre-accession treaty to be regarded as a Community treaty if it is declared to be so by Order in Council and is intended to cover any cases of uncertainty where a decision is necessary. We are bound to accept that, however hard we tried and whatever view we took of the Amendments, which I have said are unnecessary, there is a very narrow area of doubt which might arise and where there is need for a provision to resolve it. But it is a very narrow area.
We have gone into this in great detail with the Community to establish which are treaties and which are agreements, but


in so far as there are disputes they may have to be resolved by the courts. In so far as there is a question before the courts after accession, there have to be authentic text. That is a reasonable position and it has been well understood.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend recall that, in legislation in the last few years, there has been a tendency to schedule entire White Papers in Statutes? Examples are the Land Commission Act, the abortive Parliament (No. 2) Bill and the prices and incomes legislation. Surely, therefore, it would be possible here, without being unduly cumbrous, to schedule what may be an appendix to a White Paper in the Bill itself.

Mr. Rippon: As my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General explained on 6th March, the practice varies from Statute to Statute. We have taken a view as to the best way of dealing with the matter in the Bill. Of course it is arguable whether the legislation to which my right hon. and learned Friend refers was made any more comprehensible by increasing its bulk.

Mr. Spearing: Would not the Minister agree that he has given two reasons why he could not schedule a list of names—first, that it could be six pages long, although with smaller type it would only be three, and second because, on a matter of doubt, the Order in Council procedure can be invoked later? Why, therefore, can we not have the appendix as it stands at the moment or at the Treaty of Accession?

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Powell: May I put this to my right hon. and learned Friend? I follow the point which has just been made and I still do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend has grasped the difficulty that the Committee is in. He keeps referring to the list appended to the Treaty of Accession. He referred to it several times in his speech as though it was a comprehensive and complete list. The trouble is, however, that we know on the assertion of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General that some of the items set out in that list are, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, not treaties for the purpose of the Bill and some others may be and may not be.
It is an impossible position for the Committee to leave the matter like this. We cannot say "Let us pass the Bill and then perhaps we will have an Order in Council" and then the next moment my right hon. and learned Friend say "If necessary, it can be referred to the courts to decide what are treaties." It is an intolerable suggestion to the Committee that in enacting a Bill of this kind, which gives these treaties this effect, we should say "We do not know for certain what the treaties are. We have been discussing the matter hard with the Commission. We have tried to produce a list. We are not satisfied with the list. We have doubts about it. But the courts can decide after the Bill is passed what are to be treaties and what, therefore, Parliament was enacting although Parliament did not know it at the time and we were unable to tell Parliament." I do not think my right hon. and learned Friend has grasped the difficulty in which he is leaving the Committee.

Mr. Rippon: I do not think my right hon. Friend has grasped the case we have been trying to put as fairly as possible. The list of treaties and agreements has been made as comprehensive as possible, so comprehensive that it may include some things which the courts might conceivably hold—because cases have never been before them—to be not treaties or agreements. We have, however, published for the benefit—quite rightly, I am sure—of practitioners and the public a very large amount of material, all that to the best of our knowledge and belief is available.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Justice, to be done, must be seen to be done and I should have thought that in this field above all others, in the legal context, we require clarity and certainty. It seems to me, however, that the answers we have had from the Treasury Bench on this matter are totally unsatisfactory. They are quite unconvincing.
I should like to put the position in terms of the two Amendments—Nos. 40 and 200—on which I hope we will have Divisions. The first of those Amendments seems to me to ask with complete reasonableness that we should clothe these treaties with the status of our


statute law. This is a task which has to be faced. That is the correct garment to put upon them. If we are joining a Community which is to give us a new kind of legal order, which is to be superior to our own, if this is to be acceptable to this country and it is to be done on the basis of acceptance by this country, the least we can do is to clothe this new law with the garments of ourlegality—to give it, one might say, honorary United Kingdom nationality.
It will be done one way or another. If it is done in the way that Amendment No. 40 suggests, one is facing up to the task honestly, fairly and squarely. One is then saying "Here is the Bill which is being enacted and here are the treaties which are referred to, all parts of the corpus of the new statute law, which will be of vital importance to this country for the future in the event of our entering the Community."
The alternative is that, if we do not do that, we shall have on the Statute Book this tiny Bill, which is as broad as it is long——

Sir Elwyn Jones: As broad as it is short.

Mr. Murray: Yes, as broad as it is short. It is very small in any event. We shall have on the Statute Book this tiny Bill, which does not reveal its enormous compass, effects and consequences. To see what its effects and consequences are, we have to look beyond the four corners of the Bill to a vast, anonymous corpus of documents. It is a library which is never completed as far as one can see. There is not even an index to the library. One cannot look up an index to find out what is involved. Amendment No. 200 would provide a modest second best to Amendment No. 40, which would have the straightforward effect of clothing the different treaties with the garb of statute law. Amendment No. 20 is a second best designed to give us an index to the library which will be imposed upon us by the Bill.
This library will be needed in any event. Whether or not it is statute law, we shall have to refer to the authoritative, authentic texts of the treaties. We might as well do the job properly in accordance with our own legal understanding and have these treaties embodied

in our statute law. Nothing convincing has been put forward by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to satisfy me that this is not a reasonable request and that it is not something which the Government should do as a proper and reasonable course of action in order to inform not only the public, but the judges and the legal profession generally of what they may have to do.
It is not simply a question of clarity and certainty. It is also a question of legitimacy. We must deduce the titles of these treaties within the legal context of the United Kingdom. There is a serious hiatus in the Bill here. I give this illustration of it. In the learned article which appears in The Times today Professor Wade points out that the effect of these treaties is not like ordinary international treaties, merely to impose international obligations upon States. The effect of the treaties is to bring into being a new wholly legal order which must apply to all the member States and take precedence over their internal law in case of conflict.
We do not want to take such a step without being absolutely certain that the deduction of legal title—of legitimacy—is correct and proper. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, this matter was touched upon in the debate on the Motion of censure upon the Chairman and reference was made to pages 81 and 82 of McNair on the Law of Treaties, where the learned author points out that it is incontrovertible that this is the effect of the law of the land, that under British law the ratification of a treaty does not put into force in municipal law even the provisions of a treaty which are intended to be self-executing.
We are here faced with a woolliness of law. The Government have not followed through the logic and the rigour of the exercise. They are indeed taking us blindfold into the Community. They seem to be bent on doing this deliberately. This can be judged by their refusal to accept our reasonable requests either to clothe the treaties with the garb of statute law or alternatively, if not that, at least to provide an authoritative list or index of the treaties as at this date. Admittedly for the future Clause 1(3) could be used to add future treaties. That would give a degree of certainty, and no doubt the texts would be published. Why should


not the certainty be given to us at this stage, at this point of decision?

Mr. Powell: It is easier than the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested, because we are talking only about treaties entered into before 22nd January, 1972, so there is no open end to it.

Mr. Murray: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That is precisely the point. In those circumstances, not only must we face the problem of clarity and certainty and the problem of guiding our legal practitioners and, above all, our judges on how to operate the Bill when enacted and what it is introducing into our law. We must also consider the question of the legitimacy and the deduction of title of these treaties and what they are introducing into our law.
Looking for example at Clause 3 for an illustration, one sees that it provides in subsection (1) that all questions as to the meaning of any of the treaties shall be treated as questions of law. Subsection (2) says that judicial notice shall be taken of the treaties. But how are the judges to take judicial notice of treaties? How are they to determine what they are and what is the authentic legitimate deduction of title of the treaties they are to look at? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster balked at that and has told us merely that after accession there will

be some sort of official publication of the treaties. This is not good enough. Surely judges are told quite specifically in Clause 3 that certain things published in the Official Journal of the Communities are to be authoritative and that they are to take note of them and of instruments of the Community, and certain marks of authentication are to be given.

This legislation is incomplete in a method that is radically faulty. The judges and the legal practitioners should be given not merely a clear guide as to what the treaties are but also authoritative guidance about the way in which they are to interpret them. It is obvious, looking at the instruction given to judges in Clause 3(2), that they are to take notice of the treaties. But they can take notice of them, for example as international obligations which bind States, not taking effect within the municipal jurisdiction of the member States. That is a perfectly legitimate way of taking judicial notice of treaties. Or they could take judicial notice of the treaties as something which is taken up and embodied in our domestic law. But where in the Bill are the judges told to do this? For these reasons I ask hon. Members to vote in support of the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 108, Noes 142.

Division No. 132.]
AYES
[2.57 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Armstrong, Ernest
Foot, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Ashton, Joe
Ford, Ben
McNamara, J. Kevin


Atkinson, Norman
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marsden, F.


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marten, Neil


Booth, Albert
Hamling, William
Meacher, Michael


Buchan, Norman
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hardy, Peter
Mendelson, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Harper, Joseph
Mikardo, Ian


Cohen, Stanley
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Coleman, Donald
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Janner, Greville
Murray, Ronald King


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oakes, Gordon


Deakins, Eric
John, Brynmor
O'Halloran, Michael


Doig, Peter
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham, S.)
Orme, Stanley


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Oswald, Thomas


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Judd, Frank
Paget, R. T.


Dunn, James A.
Kaufman, Gerald
Palmer, Arthur


Eadie, Alex
Kerr, Russell
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Ellis, Tom
Kinnock, Neil
Pavitt, Laurie


English, Michael
Lamond, James
Pentland, Norman


Ewing, Harry
Latham, Arthur
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Loughlin, Charles
Prescott, John


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McElhone, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'nSR'dnor)




Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Sillars, James
Strang, Gavin
Wallace, George


Skinner, Dennis
Swain, Thomas



Small, William
Tinn, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Mr. John Golding and


Spearing, Nigel
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. James Wellbeloved.


Spriggs, Leslie
Wainwright, Edwin



Stallard, A. W.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Hall, Miss Joan (Kelghley)
Onslow, Cranley


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstsead)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Osborn, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Blaker, Peter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Parkinson, Cecil


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Haselhurst, Alan
Pink, R. Bonner


Boscawen, Robert
Havers, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hayhoe, Barney
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bowden, Andrew
Hiley, Joseph
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bray, Ronald
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Raison, Timothy


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Holland, Philip
Redmond, Robert


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Holt, Miss Mary
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Bryan, Paul
Hunt, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rossl, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jopling, Michael
Rost, Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Churchill, W. S.
Kimball, Marcus
Sharples, Richard


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cockeram, Eric
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Cooke, Robert
Kinsey, J. R.
Simeons, Charles


Coombs, Derek
Kitson, Timothy
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cordle, John
Knox, David
Soref, Harold


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Lane, David
Speed, Keith


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Spence, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj-Gen.James
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sproat, Iain


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Longden, Gilbert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Loveridge, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Drayson, G. B.
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McCrindle, R. A.
Tebbit, Norman


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Fidler, Michael
Mather, Carol
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Fortescue, Tim
Miscampbell, Norman
Waddington, David


Fowler, Norman
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ward, Dame Irene


Fox, Marcus
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Warren, Kenneth


Gibson-Watt, David
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wilkinson, John


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gorst, John
Mudd, David
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Gray, Hamish
Murton, Oscar



Green, Alan
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grylls, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. James Clarke and


Gummer, Selwyn
Normanton, Tom
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Gurden, Harold
Nott, John

Question accordingly negatived.

The Temporary Chairman: The question was raised earlier whether a Division would be allowed on Amendment No. 200. I am informed that the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means has agreed to select that Amendment for a Division.

Amendment proposed, No. 200, in page 2, line 23, at end add—

(5) The pre-accession treaties referred to in subsection (2) above are listed in Part I of Schedule 1 of this Act.—[Mr. Powell.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 110. Noes 141.

Division No. 133.]
AYES
[3.8 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkinson, Norman
Bishop, E. S.


Armstrong, Ernest
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Booth, Albert


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Buchan, Norman




Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Oswald, Thomas


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Janner, Greville
Paget, R. T.


Cohen, Stanley
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Judd, Frank
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Prescott, John


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kerr, Russell
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Deakins, Eric
Kinnock, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dormand, J. D.
Latham, Arthur
Sillars, James


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Loughlin, Charles
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Small, William


Ellis, Tom
McElhone, Frank
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spearing, Nigel


Ewing, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stallard, A. W.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeslon)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Foot, Michael
Marsden, F.
Strang, Gavin


Ford, Ben
Marten, Neil
Swain, Thomas


Gilbert, Dr. John
Meacher, Michael
Tinn, James


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mendelson, John
Varley, Eric G.


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Edwin


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hamling, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wallace, George


Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wellbeloved, James


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Ronald King



Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oakes, Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Halloran, Michael
Mr. John Golding and


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Orme, Stanley
Mr. James A. Dunn.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Gummer, Selwyn
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles


Atkins, Humphrey
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mudd, David


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Murton, Oscar


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Neave, Airey


Boscawen, Robert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Haselhurst, Alan
Normanton, Tom


Bowden, Andrew
Havers, Michael
Nott, John


Bray, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hayhoe, Barney
Osborn, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hiley, Joseph
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Holland, Philip
Pink, R. Bonner


Bryan, Paul
Holt, Miss Mary
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)




Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Churchill, W. S.
Hunt, John
Raison, Timothy


Cockeram, Eric
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Redmond, Robert


Cooke, Robert
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Coombs, Derek
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cordle, John
Kimball, Marcus
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Costain, A. P.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James
Kinsey, J. R.
Rost, Peter


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Knox, David
Sharples, Richard


Drayson, G. B.
Lane, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Eyre, Reginald
Le Marchant, Spencer
Simeons, Charles


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Longden, Gilbert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fidler, Michael
Loveridge, John
Soref, Harold


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
MacArthur, Ian
Speed, Keith


Fortescue, Tim
McCrindle, R. A.
Spence, John


Fowler, Norman
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gibson-Watt, David
Mather, Carol
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Gorst, John
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Waddington, David







Ward, Dame Irene
White, Roger (Gravesend)



Warren, Kenneth
Wilkinson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Weatherill, Bernard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mr. Kenneth Clarke and


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Mr. Walter Clegg.

Question accordingly negatived.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Rippon.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,

That Mr. Patrick Jenkin be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and that Mr. Terence L. Higgins be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]

SCOTLAND (TEACHERS' SPECIAL RECRUITMENT SCHEME)

3.18 a.m.

Mr. William Hannan: Even at this early hour of the morning I am glad to have the opportunity to raise on this Adjournment debate the topic of the curtailment of the teachers' special recruitment scheme in Scotland as announced by the Secretary of State on 14th March. I am glad too that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education has waited to answer the debate. He no doubt thought it his duty to do so, but he was inconvenienced on an earlier occasion by an all-night sitting.
My first criticism is of the method adopted by the Secretary of State in making such an important announcement about the curtailment of the scheme. This is not a minor decision but one which affects local authorities, the General Teaching Council, teaching organisations and, above all, the potential students. It is a poor example of the much-heralded open forum of Government to shelter behind a stooge Question put down for Written Answer in making such an important announcement. By so doing the right hon. Gentleman denied us the opportunity in the House to ask oral questions at the time of the announcement in order to elicit further informa-

tion. Those of us with deep interest in this matter feel sad about it.
On 14th March, the right hon. Gentleman replied to what is known as a "planted Question" from the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis). I hope we shall have an assurance that this technique will be abandoned when important changes of policy have to be announced. The essence of the announcement was to restrict the scheme to two categories of applicant—the older graduates who have been in industry and want to come into teaching, people with equivalent qualifications wishing to train as primary and secondary teachers; and, secondly, those specialists in technical subjects wishing to take teaching qualifications. I understand that all other applications will be refused on the ground that they will be able to apply for assistance from other public funds, such as the students' allowance schemes, and from education authorities.
This seems to deny the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's opening sentence of his statement on 14th March, which was that he welcomed to the teaching profession all mature individuals, particularly those with experience of industry and commerce. It is a strange way to show his welcome.
Some questions arise immediately. Can the hon. Gentleman provide a breakdown, for example, of the total number recruited last year or for the past three years, if possible dividing them into the three categories mentioned—first, the older graduates; secondly, the technical specialists; and thirdly those now to be refused? This would give an idea of the potential loss we are likely to suffer. Of those in the third category, how many have been going into primary schools, and how many into secondary schools, where the need is still very great for competent teachers? If this modification had been introduced three years ago, of how many teachers would we now have been deprived?
This scheme was introduced in 1951 by Miss Margaret Herbison, when she was Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Many men and women who later became teachers as a result, and thousands of


our fellow citizens who were then young people, benefited from the resulting improvements and have reason to be grateful to her and to the Departmental Committee of that time for their courageous and far-seeing proposal.
The Departmental Committee on the Supply of Teachers was then seriously concerned that a grave shortage of teachers was likely to ensue for many years. It made it clear that to depend on the normal method of recruitment alone would exacerbate the shortage and that some new means must be found of attracting entrants to the profession. The central purpose of the scheme was introduced by regulations in 1951. Does this modification necessitate other regulations? Will Parliament have an opportunity to discuss this, or is it being done by administrative action alone? If this is so, it reinforces the contention that the statement should have been made in the House.
One of the purposes of the scheme was to give the opportunity to people who had been out in the work-a-day world and in other professions and in commerce and industry to come into teaching—people who hitherto had not thought of teaching, or others who had a latent desire to teach but for financial and other reasons had been prevented from doing so.
One other very important and desirable aspect of this scheme which is to be excluded or discontinued is the valuable opportunity for those mature students desiring a second chance for teaching qualifications. In my view, this is a retrograde step, and it is being done at a time when a section of progressive thought believes that the trend should be the other way, and not a curtailment but an expansion for those willing to have this second chance. I shall return to this in a moment.
The scheme did not seek to lower the standard of applicants, nor has it done so since. But many of those who have entered under the scheme have enriched the profession and educational thought by bringing with them their hard practical experience of the outside world to leaven the theoretical and rather insular atmosphere of the staff rooms which prevailed in former years.
The entrant was granted an allowance towards the cost of fees, books, traveling expenses, and the maintenance of himself and his dependants. Was not the special recruitment scheme more generous to applicants than the methods which are now suggested? Can the hon. Gentleman say what was the approximate average cost of the student entering through this recruitment scheme and maturing at the end of his studies? What are the comparable figures, taking that cost and what the local authority is giving at present? What about the cost of the married man with, say, two children, who is himself aged between 25 and 30, a good technician or supervisor who loses his job with Rolls-Royce and has a calling for teaching? If he elects to go for security rather than a higher salary, how will he fare in applying to a local authority now as against the terms of the recruitment scheme? What, if anything, will the Government save in money? What is the extra cost to the local authority?
Since the local authorities have been referred to, were they consulted in this matter? Were they asked to be even more generous, in view of the new procedure? I understand that no circular was sent to local authorities, even informing them of this change. If that is so, it is a gross discourtesy.
With a unanimity which is rarely evident amongst teachers' organisations, these proposals have had a hostile reception and have been vigorously criticised not only as regards the method by which they have been announced, but as regards the lack of consultation—quite apart from the merits themselves. Not even the supreme General Teaching Council was consulted, and, after all the teething troubles in getting that organisation launched, desired so ardently by the teachers, it would have been wise, politic and courteous to have done so. As I understand it, there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to consult that body, but at least it would have been courteous. The ESI, the SSA and the SSTA were ignored. Surely there must be some explanation.
Many of their criticisms on the merits of the cut-back have been made already. They have been described as:
premature in the light of staffing forecasts", "ill-advised", "short-sighted", "a savage cut-back in recruitment", "incredible


that this should be contemplated when the primary schools still did not have nearly enough teachers", "it seems wrong that the Government should now deprive such recruits of their second chance of a higher education.
Those are some of the criticisms that have come from the teachers' organisations. The students have made similar comments.
In the light of these various reactions, I urge the hon. Gentleman to make serious representations to his right hon. Friend to reconsider this administrative decision. It makes a nonsense of the fact that we still have part-time education in some schools in Glasgow, although admittedly being reduced year by year. We know about the increase in the numbers of students in the teaching colleges, but more needs to be done. In my view, there will be a continuing need not only for more teachers, but for an increased pool of educated manpower for years to come.
I do not want to recite the figures. We know that there is an increasing number of young people staying on at school voluntarily until the age of sixteen, thereby necessitating more teachers. Nor do I need to make more than a passing reference to the raising of the school leaving age, which has our support. I hope that the present maximum of 30 pupils per class in primary and secondary schools will not be immutable and unchangeable over the years, but will be reduced.
I see that the time is passing, and I must give the Under-Secretary time to reply. I hope that he will bear in mind the fluctuating figures of pupil-teacher ratios, about which there was mention in last year's Estimates, and the Secretary of State's estimate that there would be a shortage of 1,000 teachers on a pupil-teacher ratio of 14·5, and that studies have been undertaken to produce a more reliable measure of staffing needs.
Has that study been completed? If so, does it justify the administrative action now being taken by the Secretary of State?
Finally, I should like to refer briefly to a Question by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) to the Prime Minister on a very important change which is taking place. On 8th February this year the hon. Gentleman asked the Prime Minister whether his attention had

been drawn to the estimate in Social Trends No. 2 which projected that more people would be needed for the social services, to which the Prime Minister replied "Yes", and then added in a supplementary answer that education would be one of the features.
In view of the changing nuances in industry with the introduction of new technology, and as men will be changing their jobs not once or twice, but three times during their working lifetime, it is important that facility should be afforded to them to come into teaching. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give answers to some of the questions which I have asked. Perhaps he will write to me regarding those questions on which he needs further time.

3.33 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): I should like to thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan) for his courtesy in raising this debate tonight and for the agreeable way that he has put his case. I am particularly grateful because he has given me the opportunity to correct a number of misconceptions about the changes which have been in the special recruitment scheme for teachers which have been exaggerated by correspondence in the Press and in other places.
First, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the form of the announcement. We certainly hoped that it would be made in an Oral Answer, but the Question was not reached. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there is an immense amount of pressure on parliamentary business at the moment and that it is not always possible for the Secretary of State to make statements on the many subjects which he would like to have ventilated in the House. Indeed, that is another reason why I welcome the debate.
I should like to emphasise that the scheme has not, as was widely suggested in the Press, been ended. It is being retained for important categories of students. The changes will not deprive mature people from other walks of life who are motivated towards teaching as a second career, since such people will in general be eligible for support from other sources of public funds. Almost


all of those who gain a place in a university, central institution, or college of education will be automatically eligible for a grant under the students' allowance scheme; while those who require to gain the entry requirements necessary for a course of higher education or teacher training can apply to their education authority for assistance under the Bursaries Regulations. Grants under the students' allowance scheme are in general at the same level and contain the same provisions for dependants and mature students as grants under the special recruitment scheme; and while education authority bursaries are somewhat less, they are at present under review. The hon. Gentleman will agree that, when grants are under review at present, it is inevitable and right that they will rise, rather than the reverse.
For the majority of people for whom such assistance is not available—graduates and people with equivalent qualifications who have already taken a course of higher education, and certain prospective teachers of technical subjects—the scheme is being retained; there is no change.
It would set the changes to the special recruitment scheme in perspective if I draw the House's attention to the conditions with which it was set up to deal in 1951. The hon. Gentleman referred to Miss Herbison, who was then in charge of the Department. Certainly there was then a critical shortage of teachers, and assistance from other sources of public funds was limited. The students' allowances scheme did not even exist, as the hon. Gentleman will know from his long experience in the House. While education authorities could award grants to students pursuing courses of higher education, their discretionary powers on whether to award a grant and the amount of the grant were very wide. The Department's report for 1951 set out the very good reasons why it was essential to introduce a scheme on account of this serious shortage, but I emphasise to the House and the hon. Gentleman that we are today in a very different situation.
First, as I have said, very few people need now be deterred from training by financial considerations. Second, there is no longer a general shortage of

teachers. Indeed, the forecasts published on 14th March by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State show that there will be a continuing improvement in the supply of teachers.
Already we are having to consider what steps might be taken to limit the intake of students to primary diploma courses to ensure that we do not train teachers who will be unable to find a job—with all the waste of resources of skilled manpower that that would involve. Present indications are that well before the end of the decade we shall also have to look very carefully at the intake to secondary courses. In such circumstances it would, in our view, be most undesirable to continue to use the special recruitment scheme to encourage mature people to give up their jobs and undertake a long period of training when at the end of the day they may be unable to find a teaching job. This applies with particular force to those who do not hold the entry qualifications for the college diploma course and require to embark on a course of preliminary studies to secure them.
Encouragement has long been available to the older entrant in the form of less exacting requirements for entry to diploma courses. But, with the increasing number of applicants for places on those courses, candidates—whether older entrants or school leavers—who offer minimum passes will, after the intake of next October, be very unlikely to secure a place. I think the hon. Member would agree that at the moment we are talking in terms of two higher grades and two "O" grades for older students, and perhaps of two higher grades and four "O" grades for those leaving school, but one can foresee in the not-too-distant future that standard being raised to three higher and two "O" grades for places on the courses for both categories.
There is no doubt that a competitive situation will develop and that while colleges, recognising their worth, will be willing to accept older candidates, some candidates will inevitably be disappointed. In these circumstances, as I have indicated, continued use of the special recruitment schemes would be wrong. Those highly motivated towards teaching will, however, still be able to train with the help of other assistance available to them as will the mature


student looking for a second start in life—and we warmly welcome such students into the profession. If it is suggested that a start will be denied to them, it should be remembered that they will be able to take courses of higher education without having to make the specific undertaking to teach in Scotland which the present scheme requires.
The hon. Gentleman made two points which I will now answer. The first was about the school leaving age and the fact that this might be an inopportune moment to modify the scheme. The answer to this is short. None of the people who are affected by the modifications to the scheme could qualify to teach in secondary schools until 1977–78. By that time, we expect that there will be no general staffing difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman's second point was very valid: he maintained that there were difficulties of staffing in certain areas. I share his concern, and we know that in Glasgow, Renfrewshire and Dunbartonshire, there have been difficulties which are likely to continue for some while yet, but the way to overcome them is not to continue a scheme to attract large numbers into the teaching profession, but rather to improve the attraction by the special inducement payments scheme, which is continuing.
I should like to mention several other points the hon. Gentleman raised. He asked about numbers: in the last complete year for which I have figures there were 612 students, supported under the special recruitment scheme, who gained primary teaching qualifications. Fifty were graduates and 562 non-graduates. In the same years, 377 received secondary qualifications of whom 238 were graduates and 139 non-graduates. Many of them will have had diplomas from central institutions. In addition, 31 students received B.Ed, degrees, which were only just developing at the time.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the regulations. He rightly explained that the scheme was set up in 1951 by Statutory Instrument. That has been overtaken by the 1962 Education (Scotland) Act which set up students' allowances regulations which were again modified in 1971 and were, equally, covered by the 1967 Teachers (Colleges

of Education) (Scotland) Regulations whereby the Secretary of State gives guidance on the scheme and can modify it by administrative action.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about costs to local authorities. It is particularly difficult to see at this stage how costs will work out until we know how local authorities will develop the bursary scheme. But, of course, the main effect of this will not come into operation until 1973–74 in relation to local authorities, and by then this can be taken into consideration by rate support grant, so one hopes that it will not cost the local authorities very much more.
The hon. Gentleman was critical about the lack of consultation. I must inform him that there were consultations with representatives of the SRS selection boards and with the principals of the colleges of education. The modifications to the general scheme were very much in line with the views expressed on teacher supply by the GTC in its report in 1969.
The hon. Gentleman asked about teaching ratios. I am glad to tell him that in primary schools we hope that the ratio will drop from 27·8this year to 23·5 by 1975–76, and that there will be a similar improvement in secondary education. There is no doubt that there has been a marked improvement in the introduction of teachers into the profession, which we all welcome very much.
We on this side of the House share the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite of the valuable contribution that has been and is being made by mature entrants to teaching. They break the normal school-college-school cycle and they bring into the classroom a wealth of valuable experience. We share, too, the hon. Gentleman's views on the desirability of giving people who, for some reason, have missed out in their education a second chance to go on to higher education.
I hope, therefore, that what I have said this evening has reassured hon. Members on three counts. First, that the modification to the scheme will not seriously affect the opportunities for higher education afforded by the scheme to mature people who wish to become teachers. Secondly, that the modifications which have been made to the scheme will not


have an adverse effect on teacher supply. Thirdly, that the second chance is still there for those who wish to grasp it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Four o'clock.